Nicely put, Steve.

In reply to:

---

"Suspicious" is an art, not a science.

---

A good deal of this thread kicks that issue up and down the field, but the truth of the matter is that there's no formula and it comes down to a judgement call. After jumping the gun on more than one occasion, I finally learned that patience is a virtue when making the SAR call. If a customer is going to turn out to be suspicious, the 30 day filing period allows plenty of time for him/her to do something else to add to my first warning sign. Often, it had already happened and a review of the customer's records added the additional "push" we needed to do the SAR.

Jumping to file a SAR too soon (i.e. without some type of internal investigation) can lead to the issue of this question .

Maybe Grist is really V2. Did his posts begin about the time V2 departed?

I don't think they are the same person. Not only was there a several month gap between the two, but V2 showed up asking for every policy and procedure imaginable, and Grist was offering to share tools. Plus, Grist never complained about vendors posting.

Wow! This is some post.

Getting back to the original question of cash in a SDB-the filing of a SAR is a judgment call depending on the particular circumstances. The act of putting cash in the SDB in itself is not a reason to file a SAR. The "reason" that the customer is placing the cash there should be addressed in the most polite manner possible. That is what will drive your decision to file a SAR or not.

There have been many cases cited in money laundering articles, where the safe deposit box was used for illegal purposes. These should be used as examples only. The decision to file a SAR in your case should made only after you have monitored the customer's account activity (and SDB activity)for a period of time (30 days perhaps). Don't condemn the customer for a single transaction without following up on his/her activities.

As far as the legality of placing cash in a safe deposit box, I've always heard that it was a no-no. However, as other BOLers have cited, there is little to support the legality of this.

As an aside, when my prior bank once closed a branch and opened up safe deposit boxes that were not claimed, cash found in the boxes became a problem. The outside firm that was hired to inventory the contents of the boxes was not listing the cash on the inventory. Fortunately, a good friend of mine was verifying the contents along with the outside firm. He asked why the cash wasn't being listed. They said "you know-they're not supposed to keep it there-they won't miss it." Sounds like they were in the habit of splitting the cash found in the boxes with dishonest bank employees. They were told in no uncertain words to list the cash on the inventory. End of story.

Sounds like that outside firm had some issues with ethics.

While I am generally slow to pull the trigger on SARs, had I ever heard of a law firm telling a bank employee to just ignore the cash found in the safe deposit box in a probate inventory process, I would file the SAR and report that firm to the State Bar Association. I know it's history now for you and there's nothing that can be done. Other than hope those folks involved rot in the hot place for ripping off dead folks.

Hey Steve, just had to comment on your picture...love it! How's Patrick?

$100,000 in a safe deposit box is much better than 100,000 frogs. Trust me on that.

In reply to:

---

$100,000 in a safe deposit box is much better than 100,000 frogs. Trust me on that.

---

Your bank offers a safe deposit box that big?

Adding to a thread that includes everything from an excommunication to a discussion on Thai food, controlled substances and amphibians is a pure expression of faith. Yet, if someone is researching this subject later, this is where they would expect to find this comment.

My knowledge of the law of safe deposit boxes is limited to five states in the Midwest. None have statutory restrictions on what can be placed in a safe deposit box. Depending on the odds you are willing to offer, I would bet that no other states have a statute or regulation with such a prohibition. Such a restriction would be a tad ridiculous because it would largely be unenforceable and would not serve any public purpose.

Nevertheless, the idea that you cannot keep cash in a safe deposit box is more than mythology - such a restriction is a common term in safe deposit leases. As such, it is the law of the contract; it binds the parties as much as any statute would.

If a safe deposit box is burglarized, it would be easy for the renter to insist, "There was $85,000 in cash in that box!" If the bank had been negligent and was found liable for the burglary, all the renter would have to do is make the finder of fact believe there really was cash in the box. However, if the contract said that no cash was to be kept in the box, the bank could have the claim dismissed because the renter had agreed not to do the very thing for which it was attempting to hold the bank liable.

The purpose of the language is to prevent fraudulent claims; i.e. to protect the safe deposit custodian. It is not a general attempt to actually control what people put in their safe deposit boxes.

Ken, you make an excellent point in your opening remarks. For those of us who like to do research on these threads, it is very disconcerting to wade through off-topic comments to get to the meat of the matter. I venture to say that many who start with this thread because of the question asked will never get to the fine commentary that you posted.

Today I plan to spend a couple of hours doing research on web-site advertising, including Google sponsored links and landing pages. There are too many interruptions at work to seriously pursue this course of study. I have tried for days.

To those who post questions, you are needed here. And to those who give the answers, your insight and knowledge is valued more than you know. It is my hope that we will stay on task with these threads and appreciate the fact that compliance is not always black and white; there are sometimes shades of gray that need to be explored. Differing opinions are what make this a valuable forum for research.


Opinions are my own and not those of my employer.

I kind of hesitate to jump in here - but I will anyway! I checked this problem out with FinCEN a long time ago, and their answer was - if cash is placed into a box, or removed from a box, there is NO transaction, therefore no CTR. The only time they would want a SAR is if it appeared obvious that there was structuring or an illegal practice going on (i.e. drug dealing) in which case a local contact should be made with the SAR. Otherwise, they really are not interested. Hope this helps!

Thank you, Barbara, for wrapping this mélange of messages into a neat package. It's nice to see your smiling face on BOL!