So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"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.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:56:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

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.

They just had a expert on CNBC that explained it.

There is a requirement to report activity over $10,000, but there is
also software to report "suspicious" activity - which I would think is
kind of a behavior monitoring software that raises flags when it's
repeated over time.

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?


No, but that does not mean I or someone else who is not in the industry
would not know about it.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?



Try reading again. I said "it would not surprise me if there was such a
software'. I think it would be very easy to do, and it is very possible
it is used by all banks.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.



I am bored with you.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:56:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

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.

They just had a expert on CNBC that explained it.

There is a requirement to report activity over $10,000, but there is
also software to report "suspicious" activity - which I would think is
kind of a behavior monitoring software that raises flags when it's
repeated over time.

Well are you in the banking industry? If not how could you possible
know about software if you are not in that industry? Was the person on
CNBC in the banking industry?

How do all of these people know about a software if they are not in the
industry? DAMN THESE ARE SUCH HARD QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. Let me get
back in touch with sparebedroom and see if he has an answer.

At least I now about the software (and I am not in the industry) and
will be much more careful when laundering my money or transferring money
to pay for my $4000 hookers.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here 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?
No, but that does not mean I or someone else who is not in the industry
would not know about it.


Your statement was as ridiculous as saying "I'm not aware of how much spare
ammo most cops carry."

You know banks are on the lookout for certain transactions. How did you
think they spotted them? People sitting at disks all day, visually scanning
transactions?

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 07:56:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

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.

They just had a expert on CNBC that explained it.

There is a requirement to report activity over $10,000, but there is
also software to report "suspicious" activity - which I would think is
kind of a behavior monitoring software that raises flags when it's
repeated over time.

Well are you in the banking industry? If not how could you possible know
about software if you are not in that industry? Was the person on CNBC
in the banking industry?

How do all of these people know about a software if they are not in the
industry? DAMN THESE ARE SUCH HARD QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. Let me get back
in touch with sparebedroom and see if he has an answer.


It's called common sense. No, go clean the lint trap in your head.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:34:53 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:56:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

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.

They just had a expert on CNBC that explained it.

There is a requirement to report activity over $10,000, but there is
also software to report "suspicious" activity - which I would think is
kind of a behavior monitoring software that raises flags when it's
repeated over time.

Well are you in the banking industry? If not how could you possible
know about software if you are not in that industry? Was the person on
CNBC in the banking industry?

Yes.