So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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


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 have been under the impression that a "movement" of 10K or above triggers
a report by the bank to some agency .... I think the IRS. It may not
trigger an investigation for most of us, but my understanding is that it is
still "reported". It has nothing to do with additional surveillance due to
9/11.

Eisboch

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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

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 have been under the impression that a "movement" of 10K or above triggers
a report by the bank to some agency .... I think the IRS. It may not
trigger an investigation for most of us, but my understanding is that it is
still "reported". It has nothing to do with additional surveillance due to
9/11.

Eisboch



The $10,000 is an automatic trigger, but the banks are also required to
report anything they deem is suspicious. All banks have someone who is
in charge of reviewing transactions for suspicious activity. I would
not be surprised if it is now done with software either by the banks or
reported into a national database.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
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.


Payola? Politicians being paid to play certain songs?

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"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?

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"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?