We have a customer who made a loan payment today with 10,000 cash. Tomorrow he is coming in to pay the rest of the loan off with another 4,000 cash. Should we file a CTR? Any reference?

If it's not the same business date then no on the CTR...but you might want to consider a SAR if you're not aware of the source of the cash and/or the reasonableness of the explanation provided. Besides it could be considered structured in nature based on the $10,000 today and $4,000 tomorrow. Why not just pay the whole loan off today with the $14,000?

i agree with Summergirl. No CTR is needed but a SAR should be filed for the apparent structuring.

I would not automatically file a SAR, I would investigate to determine whether I suspected the transactions had been structured. There could be a legitimate reason for the separate payments.

We got criticized by the OCC for not filing even if the explanation was reasonable. Regardless, the activity is blatantly structured which warrants a filing.

If you were criticized for not filing and you had documented your reasons, then the OCC examiner should have been introduced to the FFIEC manual:

"The decision to file a SAR is an inherently subjective judgment. Examiners should focus on whether the bank has an effective SAR decision-making process, not individual SAR decisions. Examiners may review individual SAR decisions as a means to test the effectiveness of the SAR monitoring, reporting, and decision-making process. In those instances where the bank has an established SAR decision-making process, has followed existing policies, procedures, and processes, and has determined not to file a SAR, the bank should not be criticized for the failure to file a SAR unless the failure is significant or accompanied by evidence of bad faith."

Could someone please give me a "reasonable" explanation for someone bringing in exactly $10,000 or $9,999 or even $9,500 in cash on one day and follow it up the next day with a payoff of the loan with $4,000 or $6,000 in cash?

While I agree and have defended banks against over zealous examiners on border line judgement calls based in the quoted passage from the exam manual, I find it hard to believe that there is any defensible excuse on this type of transaction pattern.

I hear this argument alot. The bank says: Oh the guy deposited $9,000 on two consecutive days but there is no pattern and they have never deposited much cash before and it hasn't happened since so we didn't file a SAR. Well nobody bothered to check to see that the customer came in three day later and bought a cashier's check for $18,000 to buy a car.

Maybe he had the $10,000 and was waiting on his tax refund or had to go cash out a CD to bring in the other $4,000. My point is that we should not make assumptions when working through suspicious activity investigations. Document facts, research, make SAR determination, file SAR or document why SAR is not being file, mark for follow up if appropriate.

FWIW, I have personally never had a case where I determined a customer had structured when the amount of the transaction was $10,000. In all cases I've worked, they go under ($9999, $9500, $9000, etc.). I know it happens, just not my reality and I've worked hundreds of cases.

Funny thing is that this IS the very thing that we stated to our lovely regulator.

We also got slapped in the hand for NOT filing SARs on one-time CTRs EVEN if the explanations is reasonable. I mean, some folks are just stuck in their ways. So as bankers, what do we do? Well, we just go ahead and file to avoid any further problems. I think that's the reason why the same lady didn't return the following year.

If the examiner actually documented a finding, you can discuss with your ombudsman. They are to review your process, not your decisions unless they are obviously flawed and represent "bad faith".

Our BSA program, policies, decisions, etc were squeaky and peachy clean then we got taken over by FDIC(not for BSA) and then it was over.

I think every banker and examiner have a different idea on when a SAR should be filed. If you at least take some sort of action such as account review and placing the customer at high risk for further evaluation it should make it more difficult for an examiner to criticize or hand out violations. Everyone should have a file for suspicious activity/SARs they thought about filing but decided not to file. This shows you are at least addressing the issue. Personally, I like to see a pattern of behavior prior to filing unless there is some sort of confession (which is fairly common) or very obvious structuring. It's hard to say where to draw the line.

I agree with you guys. (Dallas and Brenda)

As bankers, even if you follow the regulation word by word, you do the right thing, no matter what way you look at it, examiners will ALWAYS criticize and let's face it, examiners are handing out C&Ds, CMPs, MOUs, MRAs, etc like its candy.