Author: Jeremy T. Clifton, CRCM, CAMS
On October 9, 2025, FinCEN in conjunction with the Joint Agencies, released four new SAR related FAQs. The overall theme of the press release and FAQs is to provide clarification so BSA/AML/CFT and Fraud related employees can better use time and resources to provide law enforcement with highly valuable information via SARs and to de-emphasize SARs that may be less valuable. This all sounds great as many BSA/AML/CFT and Fraud departments are understaffed, overstretched, and running from one fire to another. However, these FAQs seem to provide more confusion than relief as no laws, regulations, or the FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual have been changed to correspond to these FAQs. I can foresee that these FAQs will be used to argue against resources, staffing, and wise SAR filing. Please encourage management to read this blog and the FAQs in their entirety as the headlines are deceiving. The opening paragraph of the FAQ even states, “The answers to these FAQs do not alter existing BSA legal or regulatory requirements or establish new supervisory expectations.” Let’s look at each of the FAQs. We have restated the FAQs below with our commentary provided for each.
Question 1: SAR Filings for Potential Structuring-related Activity
Is a financial institution required to file a SAR for a transaction or a series of transactions with a value at or near the currency transaction reporting (CTR) threshold (i.e., over $10,000) absent information that the transaction or series of transactions is designed to evade BSA reporting requirements?
No. The mere presence of a transaction or series of transactions by or on behalf of the same person at or near the $10,000 CTR threshold is not information sufficient to require the filing of a SAR. Financial institutions are only required to file a SAR if the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction or series of transactions are designed to evade CTR reporting requirements. Absent this knowledge, suspicion, or reason to suspect, financial institutions are not required to file a SAR.
A financial institution is required to file a SAR for a transaction conducted or attempted by, at, or through the institution if it involves or aggregates at least $5,000 in funds or other assets and the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that, among other criteria, the transaction is designed to evade any BSA reporting requirement. This includes transactions designed to evade the requirement that a financial institution file a CTR for one or more transactions in currency by, through, or to the institution, by or on behalf of any person, and that result in either cash in or cash out totaling more than $10,000 during any one business day.
Attempting to evade CTR reporting requirements—known as structuring—may be indicative of underlying illegal activity and is unlawful under the BSA. Under FinCEN’s regulations, structuring is defined as a person, acting alone, or in conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons, conducting or attempting to conduct one or more transactions in currency, in any amount, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading CTR reporting requirements. “In any manner” includes, but is not limited to, the breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below $10,000, or the conduct of a transaction, or series of currency transactions, at or below $10,000.
A financial institution’s AML/CFT program should be designed to detect and report structuring to guard against use of the institution for money laundering and ensure the institution is compliant with the suspicious activity reporting requirements of the BSA. The extent and specific parameters under which a financial institution must monitor accounts and transactions for suspicious activity should be commensurate with the level of money laundering and terrorist financing risk of the specific institution, considering the type of products and services it offers, the locations it serves, and the nature of its customers.
Powell & Co. Comments on FAQ 1 SAR Filings for Potential Structuring:
Please do not read FAQ 1 to say your FI should stop filing SARs on structuring, that could result in legal and regulatory issues. What the FAQ seems to be possibly indicating is that super defensive structuring SARs are not what most FIs should be getting bogged down in. The problem with that is the SAR filing thresholds are pretty low; therefore, FIs would be unwise not to investigate possible structuring and there is little incentive to not file. “Financial institutions are only required to file a SAR if the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction or series of transactions are designed to evade CTR reporting requirements. Absent this knowledge, suspicion, or reason to suspect, financial institutions are not required to file a SAR.” It’s easy to “know” if someone is structuring, they often mention it to an employee plainly that they intend to structure transactions to avoid requirements, so a SAR is required assuming thresholds are met. On the other hand, having “reason to suspect” can be quite tricky. We typically recommend a process that includes educating customers that are possibly structuring by providing FinCEN’s Educational Pamphlet on CTR Requirements, having direct discussions about transaction activity at the transaction source (tellers, CSRs, etc.) and having conversions, if needed, by account officers or BSA/AML /CFT staff. Remember, none of these conversions should affirm or deny the existence of a SAR. Once your staff better understands transaction patterns and the business itself the FI should be better able to determine if a SAR is required. The bad news is that this takes more work to make an informed decision, not less.
Question 2: Continuing Activity Reviews
Is a financial institution required to conduct a review of a customer or account following the filing of a SAR to determine whether suspicious activity has continued?
No. Recognizing the burden that continued SAR filings on the same customer or account place on institutions, FinCEN suggested in October 2000 that institutions file a SAR for repeated and ongoing suspicious activity at least every 90 days. Over time, this suggestion has become interpreted as a requirement or expectation that financial institutions conduct a separate review of a customer or account following the filing of a SAR to determine whether suspicious activity has continued.
A financial institution is not required to conduct a separate review—manual or otherwise—of a customer or account following the filing of a SAR to determine whether suspicious activity has continued. Financial institutions instead may rely on risk-based internal policies, procedures, and controls to monitor and report suspicious activity as appropriate, provided those internal policies, procedures, and controls are reasonably designed to identify and report such activity.
Powell & Co. Comments on FAQ 2 Continuing Activity Reviews:
The FAQ notes that FIs would still be expected to reasonably design policies, procedures, and controls to identify ongoing suspicious activity. If the activity continues, your FI still is required to file a SAR assuming applicable thresholds are exceeded (e.g., $0, $5,000.00, $25,000.00, & $5,000.00). If your FI has a smooth process in place with 90-day reviews, I would not fix a process that is not broken.
Question 3: Continuing Activity Reviews – Timeline
What is the timeline for a financial institution that elects to file SARs in accordance with FinCEN’s continuing suspicious activity guidance?
As noted in the prior FAQ, FinCEN previously suggested that financial institutions report continuing suspicious activity via a SAR filing at least every 90 days. Subsequent FinCEN guidance advised financial institutions to file SARs for continuing activity after a 90-day period with the filing deadline being 120 calendar days after the date of the previously related SAR filing. However, financial institutions are not required to do so and may instead file SARs as appropriate in line with applicable timelines.
For financial institutions that elect to file SARs in accordance with FinCEN’s continuing suspicious activity guidance, below is a timeline in which a financial institution files a SAR with an identified subject and determines that suspicious activity has continued:
• Day 0: detection of facts that may constitute a basis for filing a SAR
• Day 30: filing of initial SAR
• Day 120: end of 90-day period
• Day 150: filing of a SAR for continued suspicious activity
When filing a SAR for continuing activity, the date or date range of suspicious activity (Item 30 on the SAR form) should include the entire 90-day period starting on the date immediately following the filing of the initial SAR or the date following the end of the previous 90-day period.
Powell & Co. Comments on FAQ 3 Continuing Activity Reviews-Timeline:
Remember that, absent the 90-day SAR guidance which was in itself regulatory relief, financial institutions are required to file SARs generally 30 days after determining the activity is suspicious. So, without the 90-day guidance you would generally be subject to filing every 30 days. In some cases, it may be appropriate to file before the end of 120 days, but we don’t see anything new here with the timeline as noted by FinCEN. One thing that is unclear is the brief description of “Day 0”. We are working under the assumption that the exam manual guidance on “initial detection” is still in effect. “The phrase "initial detection" should not be interpreted as meaning the moment a transaction is highlighted for review. The 30-day (or 60-day) period does not begin until an appropriate review is conducted and a determination is made that the transaction under review is "suspicious" within the meaning of the SAR regulation.”
Question 4: No SAR Documentation
Is a financial institution required to document the decision not to file a SAR?
No. There is no requirement or expectation under the BSA or its implementing regulations for a financial institution to document its decision not to file a SAR. FinCEN has previously encouraged, but not required, financial institutions to document the decision not to file a SAR. Should a financial institution choose to document its decision not to file a SAR, the level of appropriate documentation may vary based on the specifics of the activity being reviewed and need not exceed that which is necessary for the institution’s internal policies, procedures, and controls, which should be risk-based and reasonably designed to identify and report suspicious activity. In most cases, a short, concise statement documenting a financial institution’s SAR decision will likely suffice, although a financial institution may consider more documentation to explain the factors that the institution considered in reaching a SAR filing determination in more complex investigation scenarios.
Powell & Co. Comments on FAQ 4 No SAR Documentation:
Hopefully, this will help with the picky examiner or independent auditor/reviewer that expects a formally documented decision not to file for any and every transaction on the books. However, most examiners or reviewers aren’t looking for those “got you” moments. What this doesn’t mean is that FIs can do a shoddy job with case documentation or alert disposition. A well-run suspicious activity program, whether manual or more automated should spin off decisions not to file through cases, internal referrals, emails from employes, etc. and every instance of suspicious activity will not result in a SAR being filed.
RSS Feed