Another key phrase is that it has to be done "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.22". Is the purpose to evade reporting or is it just a general unwillingness to give out an SSN?

are sections a, b, & c considered an AND, not an OR in legal speak? cuz then I'd be more inclined to not file a SAR

A, B and C have an "or" but the requirement that it be "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.22" applies to all three.

Been following this for days with fascination.

IMO, the customer did not Cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under Sec. 103.22 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact. The only person guilty of that is the teller. Maybe you should file a SAR on her?

I am joking of course but this is just too much. A SAR is overreaching to say the least. I think our law enforcement officials have more important things to worry about.

Structuring is not an issue here. If it was structuring, we would not be having this discussion because structuring definitely requires a SAR. In this case, a "defensive" SAR would be appropriate because the bank is going to have to defend itself if they do not obtain the SSN and no SAR is filed.

You CAN file the CTR. Explain why you're missing the info. Done.

Expired equine?

Agree on not filing. This young man dropped off a deposit now the bank wants to put him in the SAR data base. Whether he is right or wrong about refusing to give his SSN over the phone I don't know. File the CTR with the information you have, document why you don't have some information. I bet the kid doesn't offer to stop by the bank again on his next beer run.

While I agree that the teller messed up, if I was that non-customer and the bank kept hounding me for my SSN, I'd be pretty ticked off. The customer did nothing wrong. The horse is out of the barn. Document what happened, file what's appropriate and see what can be learned from this. Just my opinion.

I hate to resurrect the "dead horse" but assume it is a non-customer and they are cashing a >10,000 check. They refuse to give their SSN when it is requested. Can we refuse to negotiate the instrument? Is it helping them structure to refuse to give them cash but negotiate it for an Official Check instead? I would definitely file a SAR in this case though.

Yes.

While your bank may set its own identification requirements for cashing a smaller check, I think it's fair to say the government has its own identification requirements here. Of course, since your ability to verify a name/TIN combination at the window is limited, all the payee has to do is lie and provide you with a fictitious SSN. That happens a lot.

If I could listen to the exact conversation I might be able to pick the specific point where the dispute over receiving the SSN turned into the substitution of an official check as an offer in compromise. If the offer came from your employee, then I would suggest it was "assisting in structuring." If the request came from the payee, I would suggest it was just plain old "structuring."

Good scenario for a compliance school exam.

I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters, but where in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, Part 103, does it say that a person conducting a transaction on behalf of another must provide a social security number when a CTR is required? It is required for the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted, but I don't see it required for the person conducting the transaction.

Section 103.28 doesn't seem to require it for a person who is depositing on another's behalf:

§ 103.28 Identification required.

Before concluding any transaction with respect to which a report is required under §103.22, a financial institution shall verify and record the name and address of the individual presenting a transaction, as well as record the identity, account number, and the social security or taxpayer identification number, if any, of any person or entity on whose behalf such transaction is to be effected. Verification of the identity of an individual who indicates that he or she is an alien or is not a resident of the United States must be made by passport, alien identification card, or other official document evidencing nationality or residence ( e.g., a Provincial driver's license with indication of home address). Verification of identity in any other case shall be made by examination of a document, other than a bank signature card, that is normally acceptable within the banking community as a means of identification when cashing checks for nondepositors ( e.g., a drivers license or credit card). A bank signature card may be relied upon only if it was issued after documents establishing the identity of the individual were examined and notation of the specific information was made on the signature card. In each instance, the specific identifying information ( i.e., the account number of the credit card, the driver's license number, etc.) used in verifying the identity of the customer shall be recorded on the report, and the mere notation of “known customer” or “bank signature card on file” on the report is prohibited.

See post #1210398 above. If the CTR asked "Boxers or Briefs?" and the party conducting the transaction refused to provide the information it would be an attempt to cause the bank to file a CTR that was incorrect or incomplete.

OK, so the CTR form has a blank for the SSN of the person conducting the transaction, and the presence of the blank causes it to be considered a requirement although §103.28 requires the SSN of the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted but not the SSN of the person conducting the transaction. Do I have this right?

Yes.

The form has revised dramatically since the regulation was written. The issue is whether an attempt was made to cause the form to be incorrect or incomplete.

If you want to test the theory just leave the conductor's SSN out from now on.

Good one Ken. That one made me laugh out loud.

Ken, I should have started my initial post:

Dear Ken--

I write this to you from my prison cell...

(BTW, Ken, you stole one of my favorite lines when giving advice on an issue that is not completely clear.)

If you have worked with government regulations for a long time, you should know that most of them that require filing of forms require you to follow the form's instructions, sometimes in spite of what the regulation might say.

Here is why you have to have the SSN of the person conducting the transaction. Notice that this came from the C&D order against Riggs.

D. Violations of the CTR Requirements
FinCEN has determined that Riggs violated the BSA currency transaction reporting requirements set forth at 31 CFR §103.27(d) by failing to provide accurate information or omitting information on numerous currency transaction reports (“CTRs”). Under the BSA, banks are required to file CTRs for transactions in currency greater than $10,000 in a single day. 31 USC §5313 and 31 CFR §103.22. Banks are required to file CTRs in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury and provide all the information called for by the form. 31 CFR §103.27(d).

Thanks Riggs. And I would not have questioned the form except we are talking about a SSN. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give it out if it isn't required by law. The best I can tell, FinCEN has no right to require banks to obtain the person's social security number. And the person has the right to refuse without fear of some kind of prosecution. Another example of government by the people and for the people (sheeple)?

This is from the Social Security Administration (It does say "banks for monetary transactions," but that is only when it is statutorily required):

The Social Security number was originally devised to keep an accurate record of each individual’s earnings, and to subsequently monitor benefits paid under the Social Security program. However, use of the number as a general identifier has grown to the point where it is the most commonly used and convenient identifier for all types of record-keeping systems in the United States.

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her number for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where a number might be required or requested, a Social Security number is required/requested by:

Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
States for the school lunch program;
Banks for monetary transactions;
Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
Department of Labor for workers’ compensation;
Department of Education for Student Loans;
States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction;
States for child support enforcement;
States for commercial drivers’ licenses;
States for Food Stamps;
States for Medicaid;
States for Unemployment Compensation;
States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

The Privacy Act regulates the use of Social Security numbers by government agencies. When a federal, state, or local government agency asks an individual to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the statutory or other authority for requesting the information; whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure to provide the information.

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.