JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories



Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after Spitzer for
"unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)




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.

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories




Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after
Spitzer for "unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)



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.

We did learn something from 8 years of The Clintons.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.