"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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?

"I am not aware of any software that would review all banking
transactions, but it would not surprise me if there was...."

Doesn't sound like Reggie "doubted" the existence of the subject software.



I'm focused on "not aware of". I want to know why he SHOULD be aware of such
software. That's my only question. There is no other question I'm asking at
the moment.