"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:


For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC
told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other
reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to
label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.
I don't know. Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically
exposed people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). It seems
since 9/11, banks have been using software to spot suspicious
activities. The irony, is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks
to have more accountability.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...,4637246.story
While $10,000 might not trigger an investigation for everyone. My
colleague who is very well "connected" in NYC, told me that any well
connected person should know that anytime a politician transfers a
large amount of money, it will definitely trigger an investigation,
no matter who they are or what party they are affiliated with. It
would not matter if it was the governor of NY, or the mayor of
Paducah or the police chief of Highland Beach, Md.

My very well connected friend told me they are concerned about
illegal payoffs, bribes, and payola and they definitely would follow
up any politician making those large transfers. My friend was not
speculating, he was just calling it like it is.
There is no $10,000 limit. There isn't a set amount.

It's all software looking for patterns. Which is the exact thing
that
Spitzer used to get his bad guys.

The irony is that he didn't understand the system enough to avoid
getting caught himself.
I am not aware of any software that would review all banking
transactions, but it would not surprise me if there was, but since the
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 financial institutions have been required to
file federal forms of any daily transactions that exceed $10,000 or
any activity the bank deems as suspicious activity.


If such software existed, why WOULD you be aware of it? Do you work in
the banking industry?
You just have to know people.


I'm looking at a spreadsheet which does certain warning things if profit
on a sale dips below X percent. I could probably make it go ding-ding if
it saw $10,000.00 elsewhere on the sheet. This is huge. I wonder if the
banking industry has anything even close.

You are a simpleton.



Why do you say that? Can't spot sarcasm? Or, do you think Reggie right when
he doubts the existence of software that spots transactions of a certain
size?