So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

Well that explains everything. ;)

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

On Mar 12, 7:36*am, "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...k0312,0,463724...

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to what I heard this morning, one of the things that
triggered a closer look was the fact that "after" he transferred the
amt. larger than 10 grand, he called a bank employee and tried to get
him to take back the transfer, and when the employee said it was too
late, Spitzer asked the employee to change the name on the transfer,
that set off alarms the the employee and he filed a report..

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

On Mar 12, 7:44*am, 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...k0312,0,463724...

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But he did, see my last post..

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 7:36 am, "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...k0312,0,463724...

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to what I heard this morning, one of the things that
triggered a closer look was the fact that "after" he transferred the
amt. larger than 10 grand, he called a bank employee and tried to get
him to take back the transfer, and when the employee said it was too
late, Spitzer asked the employee to change the name on the transfer,
that set off alarms the the employee and he filed a report..

============

48 years old. It's middle-age insanity. He'd better get over it, and quick,
or he's gonna be running a deep-frier at Wendy's.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:17:33 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


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.

Yup, and if you are a PEP (politically exposed person), the flags are
looked at a little more closely. One of the public radio stations had a
segment on this. According to that report (don't quote me, I wasn't
paying close attention), *all* customers are given a PEP rating. Say you
are a Pakistani general, or a New York Governor, if any suspicious
activities are flagged by the software, they are looked at a little
closer. However, my understanding of this incident, it wasn't the
software, but human action that caused the flags.

So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


It is $10k cash.