I was wondering what some of you are using to "prove" you have performed an OFAC search -- particularly when the search does not result in any kind of match. We currently use Bridger to perform real-time searches for certain bank applications, and many of our business units use a stamp to indicate that the search has been performed with no matches found.

However, we recently heard rumors that the OCC does not consider the use of a stamp to be sufficient proof of having done the search. Has anyone experienced this issue with their examiners? If there is now an expectation that we need to maintain a detailed listing of all the names searched, we would need to adjust our procedures -- although it seems a mite anal to me.

Would appreciate any feedback on this.

Doesn't Bridger provide you with an audit trail of searches performed (user, timestamp)?

Yes, it does: We can either print the details of the "no match" results at the time the search is done, or we can generate a periodic report that lists each search that was performed. Some areas of our bank (trade finance comes to mind) need to do several searches within one transaction (all transaction parties, countries, vessels, etc.), so it is cumbersome to print each search out for filing with the transaction. I suppose the periodic report is an option that we could print out and retain (either as a regular practice or upon examiner request).

I mainly wanted to know if anyone has been told by their examiners that the use of stamps is insufficient proof of doing the OFAC search or has needed to produce a report of everything searched for their examiners.

I've not heard of such a pronouncement from another examiner. You may wish to ask this requirement be reviewed at a higher level within your regulatory agency. This is the kind of requirement that can add a very expensive regulatory burden for no benefit.

OFAC is the poster child for "regulatory creep;" the compliance burden just keeps growing through individual interpretations. Now, although there is no legal requirement to check the list, you must have actual proof that you did check it in each specific instance?

Generally, procedures that require you to check the list before or (in some cases) shortly after opening the account should suffice. The examination procedures make no suggestion to the contrary. Rather than react to a rumor from another bank, I agree with Bonnie that you should call your EIC from your last exam and discuss your processes for checking the OFAC list.

The point to that phone call is not to find out what the law or regulations say, but simply what that individual believes. That's where we are in terms of "OFAC compliance."

And the phone call also evidences a concern on the bank's part for proper management of this slippery examiner expectation. And that, IMO, is a good thing.

Thank you, all, for your feedback. My initial impression was that this sounded rather overboard, and it is nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

We have a fairly good relationship with our own (non-OCC) examiner, so not a problem for us to ask about this. I also wouldn't be surprised if his take on this is the same as ours.

Just finished our exam with OCC and we use the stamp. They did not question or comment on the use/not use of the stamp. We do have a place for initials of the employee who does the search. One of ours was not initialed and they did point it out, but it was not an issue.

At our last FDIC exam the procedures were enough. They were just back in and we need to have proof. Our credit reports complete an OFAC check and we do periodic review of our whole portfolio. They suggested we have a check box on our outgoing wire forms, but said it is ok to stamp our incoming wires noting a OFAC check was completed.

We use the stamp/initials on CIF forms at account opening and Wire transfers (incoming and outgoing).

Currently undergoing a SCC exam for BSA as I type and they have informed us that a stamp, checked box, etc... is not enough. We must have an actual print off of the check attached the CIP profile, wire transfer form, etc.

OFAC is hot hot hot during this exam!

I discussed the level of burden with the examiner. She did not doubt that we were checking the list, she just needed proof.

Interestingly, when the FDIC was here last year, they were more than happy with our OFAC procedures. This is a State exam by the State Corp. Commission, the examiner explained to me that they are going beyond what the FDIC is expecting. I think we just have a really tough examiner this round...this is her first time as head of a BSA exam. Ughhh.

We are in the process of an OCC exam as I am reading this and they seem OK with our OFAC procedures which are: at new account opening whether it is loan or deposit we screen all potential customers and print the OFAC response of the inquiry, quarterly screening of the entire database, outgoing wires are stamped with OFAC stamp and initialed by the processor. We have indicated that incoming wires are screened by our software but we do not stamp incoming since the initiator is responsible for screening their outgoing wires and we only do outgoing wires for existing customers. So far we have had no indications there is a problem with this process.

Blogger - it would seem that your State examiner is not being reasonable - perhaps based on a fear she may have that she is not being "tough enough." If possible, you need to have a discussion with her about the burden she is seeking to impose. Is the extra measure of absolute certainty she is seeking worth the loss of efficiency and profitability to the bank? Does she honestly believe that the Bank would falsify documentation? Perhaps you can assure her that your independent testing/auditing would re-verify a selected sample of OFAC searches.

We cannot roll over when unreasonable and burdensome requirements are placed on banks just to satisfy some bureaucratic desire to micro-manage a bank's processes. If this is allowed to take root at your bank, it can only spread to other banks - like so much poison ivy!

We just had a BSA exam from the OCC and they had no problems with what we are doing. In fact, they told us that because there is no requirement to document that we checked OFAC, we are being "proactive"