Answer:
This is a great example, I think, of what can happen when someone thinks he or she has a better idea on complying with BSA/AML regulations. The fact of the matter is that banks are only required to aggregate cash transactions for CTR reporting when they are aware of them. So if a bank isn't aware of the fact that an individual deposited that $20 to a friend's account on the same business date he happened to also deposit exactly $10,000 to his personal account, there's no CTR required. Obviously, if both transactions are completed at the same time, there's knowledge; but if one is completed at 9 a.m. in branch A and the other at 2 p.m. in branch B, there's no knowledge unless the bank has some sort of sophisticated system for aggregating such transactions. A CTR would be required in the first instance, and not in the second.
Banks that set up tracking for picayune cash transactions are (1) creating busy work for themselves; (2) perhaps filing a few more CTRs in a year with minimal if any added benefit to law enforcement; (3) at risk for a citation for failure to file a CTR if they fail to use the data they have recorded for aggregation, and (3) in a state of "hyper-compliance" for no good reason, again, IMO.
If a bank feels that tracking cash transactions of non-customers at levels below $10,000 per transaction is necessary, I suggest it select a reasonable threshold to trigger its tracking -- perhaps $2,500 or $3,000.
First published on BankersOnline.com 10/15/12
print
share