From: Stockton, Bill [mailto:Bill.Stockton@mfbbank.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:22 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Comments; email@example.com;
the following comment earlier today then remembered something I wanted
to add. I think you should consider expanding SAR filing to include
suspected illegal aliens. I understand that a vast majority, although
here illegally, are hard working, tax paying people. However, I
question how many terrorists and/or drug kingpins and their associates
bother to go through official channels to come here. We find
customers using apparently falsified social security numbers on a
regular basis, most of whom appear to be illegal but we have been told
that is not a reason to file an SAR. If only an occasional SAR
identifies a dangerous individual, it seems that time spent filing
those SARs would be well spent. INS or Home Land Security can sort
out who needs to be dealt with and in what ways.
From: Stockton, Bill
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:30 AM
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org';
two issues that I feel are totally unnecessary and burdensome.
Filing of CTRs: There have been proposals to increase the threshold
from $10,000. to $25,000. or so. I would propose eliminating the
process entirely and replacing it with a better developed SAR
process. My experience is that a vast majority (if not all) CTR
filings are a total waste of time. Spending time and energy filing
CTRs (and/or exemptions) on known, legitimate businesses or other
understandable customer cash transactions just because they exceed a
certain dollar limit makes no sense, not to mention the fact that it
irritates customers and in many cases causes them to "criminalize"
their transactions by structuring them. Not because they are doing
anything illegal but simply because they want to avoid the paperwork.
Besides, the requirement to file CTRs is so widely known that drug
dealers, money launderers and other criminals learn in their basic
training how to avoid them.
should really be looking for are "suspicious" activities. Train
employees to look for unusual transactions of any type. Large cash
transactions may be a sign but may also be normal for certain
customers. Also add suspected income tax evasion to the list of
reasons to file SARs. A fairly high percentage of loan applicants
will divulge the fact that they have significant, unreported income
because they think it will increase their chance for approval. Seems
to me like an excellent opportunity to inform the IRS, possibly
increase revenues by billions and maybe reduce tax rates for the rest
Rescission Involving Home Purchase: First of all, I would say that
the entire Right of Rescission rule is a waste because there are
sufficient disclosure rules in place that borrowers have ample
opportunity to understand the transaction before they close. In my
roughly 25 years as a mortgage lender, I can only recall one
transaction where the borrowers rescinded and that was because they
decided they did not want the pool, not because they felt mislead by
the lender. Rather than continuing this unnecessary requirement, file
suit against lenders who don't provide the disclosures, or provide
misleading or fraudulent ones, put them out of business and in jail.
more frustrating problem arises is when the rescindable transaction
involves a purchase. If buyers finance the equity out of their
existing home as down payment, such as with a bridge loan, rescission
unnecessarily delays the closing. Realtors, buyers and sellers rarely
understand the need and pressure lenders to ignore the requirement.
Again, borrowers are provided more that ample disclosures, at least by
legitimate lenders, and therefore should be sufficiently informed.
Also, a purchase transaction generally requires several days between
application and closing so borrowers have time to review disclosures
prior to closing. Giving them another three days after closing is
simply not needed.
I recall having seen results of studies that indicate consumers rarely
read the disclosures we are required to provide. My guess is that it
is because there are so many that they are simply overwhelmed.