I have a customer who has to file their version of a CTR (f8300). Every once in a while they deposit $9,900 in cash and I'm guessing it's because their customer is wanting to avoid the CTR.

Yes, I am going to outright ask our customer - but if they say "Yes" ... then what?

Our customer truly really is a good customer - but because they work in a small agricultural community - my guess is they're dealing with the same people I do - the "The Govn't doesn't need to know my business" people.

Your customer's customer is not really your concern. Only if you think your customer is structuring. The customer's customer is breaking the law, not your customer.

It is a lot harder to avoid a form 8300 filing than a CTR, since splitting payments into two or more so that none is more than $10,000 may avoid the bank report, but should not avoid the Form 8300. That's because the 8300 is supposed to be filed if related transactions - - say a down payment and payment of the balance - - within 12 months total more than $10,000. It also covers certain payments received in the form of monetary instruments like cashier's checks. That is, of course, if the business follows the rules.

We're currently experiencing a slightly different wrinkle on this same theme - our business customer issues legitimate payments to non-customer payee - usually in the $8-$9,000 range. Under $10,000 but above our internal threshold for obtaining conductor info. Payee refuses to provide SSN when cashing checks and has readily stated avoidance of CTR's as reason. Beyond the obvious, can we refuse to cash these checks? What trumps? UCC requirements or our reluctance to allow this person to continue using our bank for this activity?

If your customer is consistently issuing checks just under the threshold and the payee is cashing them and is uncooperative as described, I would be filing on both for structuring transactions. Also, you are well within your rights to require the payee to provide any and all information you may normally require to negotiate the checks for cash.

...and the only person to whom you owe an explanation in advance is your customer. He needs to understand you are not refusing payments he has ordered (wrongful dishonor), but that you will not make those payments when the payee refuses to provide you with information might be required by law to obtain.

Thank you both for your feedback. Much appreciated.

When we see similar activity we always follow the saying "it takes 2 to tango" since this would not happen if your customer did not write multiple checks to the same payee for under $10,000.

Cape Codder,

Devsfan and I did not read statement of facts the same way, but if you believe your customer owes the payee more than $10,000, but is issuing checks for less than that amount at the payee's request, I agree. Your customer would be complicit in the structuring.