Looking forward to @RepMaxineWaters, @AOC, and @katieporteroc taking turns shredding Deutsche Bank executives who decided the private banking division gets veto power over whether Suspicious Activity Reports are filed. A bank would only ever do that to conceal money-laundering.
/2 The standard for when a SAR must be filed is intentionally very low: if there's "reason to suspect" unlawful activity. Banks can't be sued by people for filing them. Banks can't even tell people a SAR was filed about them. Thus... https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_015.htm …
/3 ... banks have every incentive, and no disincentive, to file SARs. That's on purpose.
The only reason a bank would give SAR veto power to the same division involved if is the bank and the division felt the activity was likely illegal and would lead to a full investigation.
/4 Here's an example of how SARs are supposed to work, courtesy of Eliot Spitzer splitting up a wire transfer worth roughly $10,000. It's debatable if the bank was required to report it, but they correctly erred on the side of prudence and reported it given his political status.
You can follow @MaxKennerly.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.