3 ms·

> First, the banks actively filed these reports, so it's not like they were trying to hide these transactions. The ones they really wanted to hide, you won't fi

> First, the banks actively filed these reports, so it's not like they were trying to hide these transactions. The ones they really wanted to hide, you won't find in these reports. The takeaway I got from the article was the banks filed the reports, but the government organisation designed investigate and take action is underfunded and staffed so reports probably never get read or actioned upon. So the banks continue doing custom with those they suspect are doing bad things.

valuearb 6y ago
It’s not illegal to do business with people you ”suspect” of doing “bad” things. It would be the most Orwellian thought crime if it was. Banks have to file a SAR for any group of transactions over $25,000, do you expect them to stop doing business with anyone who accumulates transfers over $25,000?
- panarky 6y ago
  > Banks have to file a SAR for any group of transactions over $25,000 This is manifestly false. The $25k number is only for suspected violations of federal law in that amount or larger, not every time I buy a car or transfer $25k to my brokerage account. Source: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN%20SAR%20ElectronicFilingInstructions-%20Stand%20Alone%20doc.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN%20S...
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Sure, I shouldn’t have said every $25K transaction. But from your link: “Violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect. Whenever the bank detects any known or suspected Federal criminal violation, or pattern of criminal violations, committed or attempted against the bank or involving a transaction or transactions conducted through the bank and involving or aggregating $25,000 or more in funds or other assets, where the bank believes that it was either an actual or potential victim of a criminal violation, or series of criminal violations, or that the bank was used to facilitate a criminal transaction, even though there is no substantial basis for identifying a possible suspect or group of suspects.” That’s such a hugely broad definition that it encompasses many innocent transactions. If a bank isn’t 100% sure about you or your business, a SAR covers their ass. I once had a bank decline to allow me to make large cash withdrawals because I was a new customer. They had no evidence I was doing anything improper. It was my funds, that I frequently deposited directly as cash. But mere “suspicion” is enough to restrict my rights, to protect the bank from regulators.
    - panarky 6y ago
      If I know or suspect someone is breaking into my home or business, it's reasonable and customary to report that to the police. If the bank knows or suspects criminal activity is occurring, how is reporting that any different?
vmception 6y ago
That's not the only takeaway and the article and ICIJ are in the business of not providing any other takeaway. I used to work for a US Federal financial regulator. Suspicious Activity Reports are discriminatory and that is how they are used. From the in person bank teller to the compliance officer behind the scenes. ICIJ handpicked a few reports with "big numbers" that people could "get mad about" while providing no context about what should have happened. That’s their entire modus operandi. An alleged ponzi scheme that already settled with US authorities is not the same as a sanctions evading money mule. The expected outcome is not the same. What is the goal here? "Omg the bank filed a SAR and nothing happeneedddd 111!" What was supposed to happen? This is a pointless dragnet. 9/11 wasn't that expensive, 6 figures at best. The Bank Secrecy Act and the subsequent Patriot Act would not have flagged the terrorists' transactions. They prevent nothing. If HSBC was laundering billions for the literal cartel for a decade after 9/11 and nothing happened, then what does that tell you about people? Dangerous organizations aren’t trying to attack American soil. Maybe they just want to have a nice life at the end of the day. Stigmatizing transactions is supposed to make that observation feel uncomfortable, its still not the way to curb the actual behavior we want to stop. All we have is a massive data mining operation and another way to imprison unintended targets. These regulations only ensnare individuals who have "will the bank/government freeze my $10,000 dollars" money because of that individual's complete unfamiliarity with reality and segregation from financial literacy. The US should get out of the business of whitelisting transactions as it is expensive and a complete waste of public and private sector resources. Right now we have a mixture of the regulators being swamped, and the regulators using discretion that no politician can risk their career on.

valuearb 6y ago

It’s not illegal to do business with people you ”suspect” of doing “bad” things. It would be the most Orwellian thought crime if it was. Banks have to file a SAR for any group of transactions over $25,000, do you expect them to stop doing business with anyone who accumulates transfers over $25,000?

panarky 6y ago
> Banks have to file a SAR for any group of transactions over $25,000 This is manifestly false. The $25k number is only for suspected violations of federal law in that amount or larger, not every time I buy a car or transfer $25k to my brokerage account. Source: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN%20SAR%20ElectronicFilingInstructions-%20Stand%20Alone%20doc.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN%20S...
- valuearb 6y ago
  Sure, I shouldn’t have said every $25K transaction. But from your link: “Violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect. Whenever the bank detects any known or suspected Federal criminal violation, or pattern of criminal violations, committed or attempted against the bank or involving a transaction or transactions conducted through the bank and involving or aggregating $25,000 or more in funds or other assets, where the bank believes that it was either an actual or potential victim of a criminal violation, or series of criminal violations, or that the bank was used to facilitate a criminal transaction, even though there is no substantial basis for identifying a possible suspect or group of suspects.” That’s such a hugely broad definition that it encompasses many innocent transactions. If a bank isn’t 100% sure about you or your business, a SAR covers their ass. I once had a bank decline to allow me to make large cash withdrawals because I was a new customer. They had no evidence I was doing anything improper. It was my funds, that I frequently deposited directly as cash. But mere “suspicion” is enough to restrict my rights, to protect the bank from regulators.
  - panarky 6y ago
    If I know or suspect someone is breaking into my home or business, it's reasonable and customary to report that to the police. If the bank knows or suspects criminal activity is occurring, how is reporting that any different?

vmception 6y ago

That's not the only takeaway and the article and ICIJ are in the business of not providing any other takeaway. I used to work for a US Federal financial regulator. Suspicious Activity Reports are discriminatory and that is how they are used. From the in person bank teller to the compliance officer behind the scenes. ICIJ handpicked a few reports with "big numbers" that people could "get mad about" while providing no context about what should have happened. That’s their entire modus operandi. An alleged ponzi scheme that already settled with US authorities is not the same as a sanctions evading money mule. The expected outcome is not the same. What is the goal here? "Omg the bank filed a SAR and nothing happeneedddd 111!" What was supposed to happen? This is a pointless dragnet. 9/11 wasn't that expensive, 6 figures at best. The Bank Secrecy Act and the subsequent Patriot Act would not have flagged the terrorists' transactions. They prevent nothing. If HSBC was laundering billions for the literal cartel for a decade after 9/11 and nothing happened, then what does that tell you about people? Dangerous organizations aren’t trying to attack American soil. Maybe they just want to have a nice life at the end of the day. Stigmatizing transactions is supposed to make that observation feel uncomfortable, its still not the way to curb the actual behavior we want to stop. All we have is a massive data mining operation and another way to imprison unintended targets. These regulations only ensnare individuals who have "will the bank/government freeze my $10,000 dollars" money because of that individual's complete unfamiliarity with reality and segregation from financial literacy. The US should get out of the business of whitelisting transactions as it is expensive and a complete waste of public and private sector resources. Right now we have a mixture of the regulators being swamped, and the regulators using discretion that no politician can risk their career on.