COMPLIANCE
Your AML alert software culls a customer from out of the data stream . Your job in BSA / AML compliance is to review these types of anomalies and decide if it is worthy to file a SAR . All the identified indicators are consistent with your AML training and experiences and constitute near textbook examples of suspicious transactional activities . The kind of activities any regulator would consider a “ no-brainer ” for a SAR filing .
A couple of months later , somewhere at a SAR Review Team far away , that well-articulated , brief and concisely written SAR grabs the attention of an agent reviewing a recent download . The address also catches the agent ’ s attention . This is an area the agent is familiar with and where other “ front ” businesses have been found to be covering for illicit activities . The agent knows that the amounts outlined are inconsistent for legitimate businesses of this type . They are consistent with the illicit activities the agent suspects are behind it . The agent begins to smell smoke !
Subpoenas are requested and eventually are approved and sent out . For the next couple months the agent is regularly on the phone , though often playing “ phone tag ” with various entities at your financial institution . The agent was trying to get copies of the transactional documentations that actually constitute potential evidence . Over that time , various subpoena compliance people kept trying to convince the agent that the simple data processing printouts they have provided is all they have to offer . The agent well knows that these are not the documents that have evidential value . The agent needs those items ( or at least good copies of ) created or presented during the transactions in question . What the subpoena compliance people offer may make accounting sense , but it is not the evidence the agent knows the prosecutor will want . The agent is frustrated and eventually finds you in this quest .
You do your best to be helpful but you are not sure how to get what the agent is looking for . Frankly , you are not even certain what to look for . Although you understand that what was offered were not reproductions of what happened between the teller and the customer , your training never quite covered the small nuances of teller and customer interactions . Your next concern is that the videos the agent wants are held by another department you have little contact with or control over . You already know that such videos are normally only kept for 60 to 90 days . The SAR took 45 days to find its way to the agent . The subpoena was received about a month beyond that . You believe this request will be futile . Remarkably , after repeated messages , calls and emails between the agent and that department , a couple videos of these transactions are located and preserved .
The agent presses on and becomes certain these transactional activities are also something a teller or branch employee might find memorable . Prosecutors need witnesses like this . You again feel uncomfortable because your financial institution ’ s policy is very cautious about allowing tellers to be interviewed about official business . After another series of phone calls and email exchanges with the legal people , the interviews with the branch people are approved .
The agent interviews the teller and , as suspected , is most helpful to the agent ’ s inquiries . These transactions are unusual and the teller recalls them very clearly . The subject has even made some unwittingly culpable statements to the teller . Not quite yet a smoking gun , but certainly not exculpatory . The agent is somewhat relieved that this live witness is available . The investigation is progressing nicely .
What the sub poena compliance people offer may make accounting sense , but it is not the evidence the agent knows the prosecutor will want
Between the analyzed financial records , the videos and the teller interviews , the agent developed the clear probable cause needed to obtain search and seizure warrants and , hopefully , to recover the extra evidence to make a stronger case . The execution of such warrants would also provide the agent with the leverage and opportunity to interview the subject under optimum circumstances .
The agent provides the prosecutor with a well-articulated , brief and concise affidavit outlining the case , and the request for the warrants . The prosecutor instinctively knows this is a competent agent and a thorough investigation . The elements and evidence for an apparent straightforward prosecution seem to be there . Although the case is already “ pretty good ,” the prosecutor stresses to the agent that a productive interview with the subject is also going to be important .
ACAMS TODAY | SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2017 | ACAMS . ORG | ACAMSTODAY . ORG 55