| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
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 |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
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. :-) |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Mar 11, 12:28*pm, "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.../index.htm?ere... Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after Spitzer for "unusual financial transactions". Right. :-) Yep! And supposedly the number one person that should have his finger on the pulse of this nation was the last one to hear that analysts are projecting $4.00 a gallon gas........ |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
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. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
"John" wrote in message
... "HK" wrote in message ... 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. I read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... Maybe another Republican's been caught in a public bathroom, the news hasn't broken yet, and this Spitzer thing's a way of drawing attention away from the NAMBLA contingent in Congress. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom 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 read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... Maybe another Republican's been caught in a public bathroom, the news hasn't broken yet, and this Spitzer thing's a way of drawing attention away from the NAMBLA contingent in Congress. Good grief. All the damage control conspiracy theories percolating away about news that is only 24 hours old. Eisboch |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom 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 read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... Maybe another Republican's been caught in a public bathroom, the news hasn't broken yet, and this Spitzer thing's a way of drawing attention away from the NAMBLA contingent in Congress. Good grief. All the damage control conspiracy theories percolating away about news that is only 24 hours old. Eisboch What a country! :-) http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...g?t=1205271400 |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
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. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
John wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... 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. I read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... When Mr. Clean took to the podium with his wife by his side he never denied anything. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... 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. I read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... Maybe another Republican's been caught in a public bathroom, the news hasn't broken yet, and this Spitzer thing's a way of drawing attention away from the NAMBLA contingent in Congress. You mean Barney "Mr Whorehouse" Frank and Gerry "The Coach" Studds? |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:19:41 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom 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 read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... Maybe another Republican's been caught in a public bathroom, the news hasn't broken yet, and this Spitzer thing's a way of drawing attention away from the NAMBLA contingent in Congress. Good grief. All the damage control conspiracy theories percolating away about news that is only 24 hours old. Eisboch I can't understand all this wailing at Republicans. The damn New York Times is sure as hell not a Republican newspaper! The headlines for the last two days have not been 'Spitzer friendly'. -- John |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:10 -0500, John H.
wrote: I can't understand all this wailing at Republicans. The damn New York Times is sure as hell not a Republican newspaper! The headlines for the last two days have not been 'Spitzer friendly'. Pure speculation on my part, but there is an interesting aspect to this whole imbroglio. Spitzer busted some big prostitution rings. Normally, prostitution enterprises like this are mob connected, if not run by same. The two really big ones Spitzer busted were connected to the Genovese crime family which specialised in this type of activity. The other organization that is connected to this particular "industry" is the Bonanno crime family. In theory one could wonder if Spitzer was "protecting" his favorite escort service on behalf of the Bonanno's? In particular where he had been utilizing these professional services for at least six years and quite possibly ten or more? |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:19:41 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Good grief. All the damage control conspiracy theories percolating away about news that is only 24 hours old. That's the intertubes for you. All the nuts come out. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Mar 11, 6:06*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:10 -0500, John H. wrote: I can't understand all this wailing at Republicans. The damn New York Times is sure as hell not a Republican newspaper! The headlines for the last two days have not been 'Spitzer friendly'. Pure speculation on my part, but there is an interesting aspect to this whole imbroglio. Spitzer busted some big prostitution rings. *Normally, prostitution enterprises like this are mob connected, if not run by same. The two really big ones Spitzer busted were connected to the Genovese crime family which specialised in this type of activity. The other organization that is connected to this particular "industry" is the Bonanno crime family. In theory one could wonder if Spitzer was "protecting" his favorite escort service on behalf of the Bonanno's? In particular where he had been utilizing these professional services for at least six years and quite possibly ten or more? maybe he was conducting his own investigation and trying to gather information "undercover". ?;^) |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Mar 11, 6:07*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:19:41 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Good grief. *All the damage control conspiracy theories percolating away about news that is only 24 hours old. That's the intertubes for you. * All the nuts come out. a lot of "leading experts" and "talking heads" stampeding out there, expecially right when they open the gate! |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. John wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... 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. I read somewhere else that the whole story seems way too fishy, like he was targeted for some reason. Like maybe they needed to find at least one democrat after all of the republicans that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or caught in homosexual acts or pedophile acts or...... When Mr. Clean took to the podium with his wife by his side he never denied anything. He didn't play the god card, either, like Gingrich. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
"Tim" wrote in message
... On Mar 11, 6:06 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:10 -0500, John H. wrote: I can't understand all this wailing at Republicans. The damn New York Times is sure as hell not a Republican newspaper! The headlines for the last two days have not been 'Spitzer friendly'. Pure speculation on my part, but there is an interesting aspect to this whole imbroglio. Spitzer busted some big prostitution rings. Normally, prostitution enterprises like this are mob connected, if not run by same. The two really big ones Spitzer busted were connected to the Genovese crime family which specialised in this type of activity. The other organization that is connected to this particular "industry" is the Bonanno crime family. In theory one could wonder if Spitzer was "protecting" his favorite escort service on behalf of the Bonanno's? In particular where he had been utilizing these professional services for at least six years and quite possibly ten or more? maybe he was conducting his own investigation and trying to gather information "undercover". ============== Maybe it involves something he started before becoming governor. It's said he's relentless to the point of being weird. |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:06:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:10 -0500, John H. wrote: I can't understand all this wailing at Republicans. The damn New York Times is sure as hell not a Republican newspaper! The headlines for the last two days have not been 'Spitzer friendly'. Pure speculation on my part, but there is an interesting aspect to this whole imbroglio. Spitzer busted some big prostitution rings. Normally, prostitution enterprises like this are mob connected, if not run by same. The two really big ones Spitzer busted were connected to the Genovese crime family which specialised in this type of activity. The other organization that is connected to this particular "industry" is the Bonanno crime family. In theory one could wonder if Spitzer was "protecting" his favorite escort service on behalf of the Bonanno's? In particular where he had been utilizing these professional services for at least six years and quite possibly ten or more? Being close to Redneck status, I've no knowledge of all these families. But, it *is* an interesting theory. You could use the word 'may' a few times and get a good story going. Hell, the NYT might buy it, unless they're owned by the Bonanno's also. Something like, "Spitzer may have been protecting his favorite escort service on behalf of the Bonanno's." -- John |
So, how does the Fed boost the economy?
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 |
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? |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com