I realize that this "article" smacks of yellow journalism but there's nothing inaccurate in any of the facts stated.

Be careful out there.


http://www.infowars.com/feds-urge-banks-to-call-cops-on-customers-who-withdraw-5000-or-more/

 

Bunch of crap!





or is it? Dang. I just learned something.

 

This is a good reason to rat hole a bunch of cash in places the government does't know about. Scary stuff...

 

I came out of retirement to help a small bank with compliance. Fix ya' right up.

https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_015.htm

Here's the Currency Transaction Report guidance while we're at it.

https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_017.htm

Bankers being constrained to act as agents of the United States government. What's suspicious can be subjective.

I loathe burgeoning government bureaucracy.

 

Constrained? This is more like conscription of bank employees to provide the Feds with "probable cause" for surveillance of private banking transactions as small as $3,000. First it was warrantless gathering of private citizens's phone records, and now this.

 

so if i buy a watch and wire transfer a few 1000 $$ to someone overseas, i'm investigated? wow. how do they determine if there's something suspicious that warrants deeper investigation?

should i be looking over my shoulder now (having just done this very thing)?

 

They already know what website you were on so don't worry Too Much.....

 

They are seizing small businesses bank accounts
for making cash deposits. Ruining the businesses
in the interim. Citizen's are the enemy. All you have
to do is look at the military hardware and military training
local governments have been "given". Time to Wake Up!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-owners-battle-irs-over-seized-bank-accounts/

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7326135/police-militarization-federal

 

In the UK there is money laundering laws and the banks are over zealous in policing them. About ten years ago I received a cheque from a solicitor for £5000 and when I tried to pay it into the bank they refused until I told them the full details of the source. I was outraged that they implied I was some kind of drug baron. To top it all they also wanted to know what I was going to spend the money on. My reply was I'm going to blow it on high end prostitutes and cocaine.
I do find Alex Jones a bit too much though.
He says wearing a tin foil fedora with matching socks

 

George Orwell was right - just off by a few decades.

 

This model seems to be: I lend the bank money by putting it on deposit with them and then they refuse to pay me back unless they are satisfied that I'm going to use it sensibly. WTF? And I used to work in a bank.

Reminds me of the story of the soccer player George Best, who was asked what he had done with his fortune. He said he had spent 90 per cent on hookers and blow and wasted the rest.

 

Wait until they start charging you for having it.
What's happening in Europe will be here before long.
It's called negative interest rates.

 

I am in charge of security for a bank. I can unequivocally tell you that there has been no such guidance conveyed to banks through any official channels. I would be in charge of making sure we comply with something like that and it just doesn't exist.

There are anti-money-laundering requirements that we have to comply with, but nothing like what that story is talking about.

 

I can back up what COBanker says. There's some fear-mongering going on in this article, along with gross overstatement of what's actually required - not to mention what happens with these SARs that are filed.

Generally speaking, the SARs would either (a) go into a database where they are stored until a hit occurs - say, some fella turns out to be a money launderer, and the authorities review the SARs filed to track whether he's had other activities ongoing; (b) be incorporated straight off the bat into an ongoing investigation that the authorities are already conducting on someone who's suspected of criminal activity; or (c) if it's a foreigner, be sent off to the respective country if it looks like something big and extremely dodgy is going on, so that actions can be taken on the other end.

Many other (civilised) countries have the same regime. The US has the NSA, so I don't know how that figures in, but I imagine it can't be that exaggerated as the article says because honestly, you've only got a limited number of government staff and a whole wide world of criminal activity out there, so I can't imagine they'd be spending a lot of time reviewing every SAR that comes their way. That's the reality of law enforcement - you're usually behind a step or two.

As for whether banks do end up filing SARs on watch dealers and watch buyers who withdraw large sums infrequently - my advice would be to just put up with the questions, highlight that you're a dealer/frequent purchaser, and the bank can take note so that in future if there's similar transactions then they've got it on record that this has happened before and it isn't the beginning of some shady behaviour.

 

Interesting perspective. Are you located in the United States? I don't want to pry too much but you were pretty specific that you're the boss. Do you work in retail banking??

When you write "anti-money-requirements" did you mean AML? I've not come across any bank which is anti-money. That would be the purest and least diluted oxymoron, like, pretty much ever.

Something called "Info Wars" is surely some twisted form of journalism (as I noted in my first comment). I also wrote that nothing in the article was untrue.

Any financial institution covered by the '13, '33, '34 or '41 Act absolutely and unequivocally (sry to ape your word) reports structured transactions to regulatory agencies and authorities. This would be beyond the scope of regular Anti Money Laundering compliance.

Here's an interesting blurb from the NY Times concerning the summary confiscation of bank accounts. Real Banana Republic type stuff:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/2...spicion-no-crime-required.html?referrer=&_r=1

I'm going back to looking at pictures of pretty watches

 

I'm afraid this is exactly correct.

The gambit has always been to make us a cashless society.

 

Haha.....

That reminded me of one of my recruit briefings many years ago.

Our new intake was in a lecture hall and the paymaster was trying to explain what we should do with our new found wealth.

He pointed to a 17 year old kid and said "And what did you spend your last pay on son?"

"Um....I banked some, spent some at the canteen and sent the rest home to my Mum."

The paymaster nodded and smiled, and then pointed to a grizzled 25 year old re-entry at the back of the room.

"And what about you there, what did you do with your last pay packet?"

"Well mate, I must have spent half on cigs (cigarettes), half on booze, and half on prostitutes, and I guess I just squandered the other half!"

I guess he was no accountant, but he had the whole room in fits of laughter (except for the paymaster of course).


He'd obviously heard the old joke before and thought to try it on for a laugh, well, it worked.

I still remember old Frosty, a straight shooter and a good buddy on a run ashore.

Died at 55 of complications from lung cancer and leukemia (side benefits of military service).

As they say, "Old soldiers just fade away"..... (in this case, an old sailor crossed the bar).

 

I think we discussed one time but what do you really think is the cause of all these nasty cancers of servicemen? Is it the defoliants and bug killers? Or, something even more nasty ...did u guys use depleted uranium cannon ammo ?