by oldedude on November 30, 2022 12:52 pm
"Banks are incentivized to file even questionable reports as they could be penalized if they missed reporting actual nefarious activity."
Cite? anywhere except for the one fraudulent citation you have.
Commonsense to tell you that there is a huge number false positives.
First. DEFINE FALSE POSITIVE.
Secondly. You're "commonsense" isn't. You don't know enough about the subject to actually talk about it.
I sincerely doubt that your banker friend can tell you with a straight face that a significant number of her SAR resulted in convictions.
That's not their job and why does it matter? I asked you before and you wouldn't answer then either. I went into this in depth. If you didn't read, not my fault. If you didn't understand, and didn't ask, not my fault. Read up on your subject before you make an arse of yourself.
GRC forums is a free form forum, much like this one. In the paper they cited, "Financial Crime and Fraud Report 2022" they didn't understand the difference between fraud prevention (a phrase out of the 1990's) and their AML systems. That should tell you they don't know the basics of banking and the AML requirements.
Also, a response to a quote in there. "“The problem is you don’t know the end-to-end story, you don’t have a linear view of transactions”- David Rowe-Francis
That "may" be a true statement, although 99% of the time, that information is searchable by the bank, as they have a right to know and understand where the money comes from and where it's going. That doesn't matter if it's a credit card, cash or wire. IF the bank only reports their physical part of the transaction, you still have supporting documents from other banks, or you can request them. He (and therefore you) 'ass ume" you only look at one SAR and charge from that, which is totally inaccurate.
If you actually read the SAR from JPMC on Hunter, it's a good account of a transaction. Would I use it to charge? Not if it was the only evidence. I would get the CTRs from it (those are generally listed on the attachments on the SAR). With the CTRs, you could see how the transactions went from (in this case) a person that was listed on the sanction list, to a US bank. To me, that's not suspicious, it's illegal. But it's ILLEGAL (and stupid) for the bank to accuse anyone of that. They're not lawyers, they're bankers, thusly, it's a SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORT.
He reminds me of some Muslim zealots who go nuts if the profit Mohammed is criticized or parodied. He was seemingly normal: an insurance salesman and an aspiring country-western musician. Now he's looking at about a decade in jail. Btw, I wasn't familiar with the The Good Information Foundation, the target of his ire, so I linked to them below.
