3 ms·
From your link: > A 2020 Bank Policy Institute study found that American SARs elicited a response from law enforcement in a median of 4% of reports, and that a
by radlad 3y ago
From your link:
> A 2020 Bank Policy Institute study found that American SARs elicited a response from law enforcement in a median of 4% of reports, and that a tiny subset of those responses resulted in arrest and conviction, suggesting that 90% to 95% of SARs reports were false positives of unlawful activity.[5]
Anecdotally, I've heard of many people having issues with this system.
I find the claim that "it would do quantifiable harm to the prosecution of financial crimes globally" technically true (it is quantifiable), but to be overall exaggerated as to its actual harm.
- kube-system 3y agoThat's not surprising. There are plenty of suspicious things that aren't illegal. Moving $10k in cash around can often be legal, but could trigger a SAR. SARs aren't just supposed to catch illegal things. They catch suspicious things, and illegal things will be a small subset of those.
- FireBeyond 3y agoIs it just cash? I was doing some freelancing and as I invoiced each month, I'd often generate a cashier's check from my business checking account to my personal checking, that varied between 9-12K a month. I was "warned" by my credit union about this and that there could be flags raised, but my response was, "what am I meant to do? That number is derived from my consulting hourly rate and the work I put in each month."
- kube-system 3y agoNo, I just picked one example, there are a lot of things that could trigger it
- reaperman 3y agoI believe the way to avoid SAR here is to file for an LLC, then create a business account, then pay yourself whatever wage via direct deposit for 1099/W-2/capital divestment payments. I'm not saying that you should have to do that, but I believe it's the best way to avoid SAR.
- panarky 3y agoWhen you own a company, you can direct that company to pay you. There are many names for the payments to owners, such as "dividend", "loan", "draw", etc. None of these payments are suspicious if both you and your business account for them properly. You don't need to disguise payments to owners as wages or 1099s, but you're free to do so if for some reason it's advantageous. But don't do it just for the appearance of legitimacy.
- reaperman 3y agoThere are some rules that kind of establish a minimum amount you need to pay yourself for your own labor (either W-2 or 1099), I don’t think you can take 100% as capital divestments, but otherwise yes totally agree with you. I meant paying yourself however is most advantageous for your earnings/tax/savings situation.