The original bank records that triggered the SARs can’t be scrubbed. Those will still be around. I imagine Mueller and his team can decide for themselves in reviewing the bank records which transactions indicate suspicious activity, even without the reports.
Banks and other reporting institutions are required to keep paper or electronic copies of their SAR filings for five years.
All that makes the notion that this was done out of a legitimate whistleblowing concern even more dubious than it was already. More likely the whistleblowing line is a CYA attempt, after the feds started investigating the source of the leak.
The only person to whom it appears dubious is you.
While the file copies at individual banks are useful as evidence, they are not readily searchable by law enforcement. Records being removed from the FinCEN database is alarming, would most likely be an inside job, and seems like a perfect instance where a public disclosure rather than a report to one’s superiors is in order.
This seems relevant. Cohen was working on a Trump tower in Moscow deal during the election, with Trump signing a letter of intent on the day of the third debate. Story also includes negotiations with Russian spies, and a promised meeting between Putin and Trump after the convention to finalize the deal.
But there would be a* procedure*. We know the procedure for adding a record, a bank sends that report, the record gets added. But under what legitimate procedure is a record removed? A court order, some decision by a highly placed official, with the appropriate memo? Shirley the authority to delete records is not widely shared, the temp covering the reception desk doesn’t have a “delete” option.
This is about banking, about the Dollar Almighty. For many of us, a central concern, for Republicans, it is the vessel, the spine and the substance.
So you think the guy is lying about these financial records/reports going missing?
I wonder what would be the result of having all banks resubmit their SARs from, oh, say the beginning of the Trump administration, and doing a comparison of those records to what remains in the FinCEN database. How many records might be missing? And whose?
Ha! Another fish hunting witch expedition!
The article does not say that. (Nothing surprising in that regard.)
Possibly. I don’t know about that. But regardless, I think it’s very unlikely that this was his motivator, as previous. My guess is that the guy saw everyone else with access to inside info leaking like mad and decided to get in on the action. Then the feds opened an investigation into this particular leak and it suddenly hit him that he was in some serious legal jeopardy.
So many witches… so little time.
That’s funny to envision, but the banks have to file within 60 days of the activity being reported, if I remember my most recent anti-money laundering training correctly. The forms are filed using the Bank Secrecy Act E-Filing system, which keeps records of accepted and rejected forms for five years. That’s a separate database from the one from which the forms themselves are missing. There are all kinds of ways to put this data back where it belongs. Deleting them was nefarious, but unlikely to be effective, due at least in part to the whistle-blower.
ETA: The whistle-blower understood his/her legal jeopardy before releasing the information. Those of us who handle banking data get frequent training on the laws surrounding this stuff.
F-B;
I think it’s good that people don’t automatically accept the first theory that comes up. It’s good that they try to find alternative reasons to cover all the bases.
However, when all is theorized a person must pick up the most plausible chain of events. Sometimes it’s not the first and sometimes it is.
So, to me it’s OK that you suggest these other ideas, but if you really believe all of them instead of the obvious ones you should get a tinfoil hat.
I know I shouldn’t bother:
Sater told Cohen that GenBank operates “through Putin’s administration and nothing gets done there without approval from the top. The meetings in Moscow will be with ministers — in US, that’s cabinet-level and with Putin’s top administration people. This likely will include Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary. To discuss goals, meeting agenda and meeting time between Putin and Trump.”
I’m sure that you know that you backed the wrong horse by now. Do you have you exit strategy for backtracking?
Can’t get legit tin foil these days, its all aluminum. Which, if not folded precisely in relation to true magnetic North, will actually enhance the telepathic rays! (I have relatives in Texas, they keep me informed.)
So, what he claimed happened gets a shrug from you; the real story, the thing worth commenting on here, is whether or not he’s self-serving in making the claim?
Having the situation Phippsplained to us is amusing in its own right.
Yes, come to think of it, they actually are a lot like parabolic antennas. I wonder who developed them. CIA ? Now THAT is a Devilish plot.
I appreciate your insight into an area of which I’m entirely ignorant. It’s a comfort to know the data can be restored short of what I suggested, and we are in agreement that deleting them was nefarious (such a perfect term!), if indeed it was a deletion that caused the records to go missing.
The whistleblower was courageous, especially for understanding his/her legal jeopardy prior to releasing the information. Who knows? By drawing attention to the missing SARs, more deletions may be found if it triggers an audit – which it certainly should.
Gosh. Do we know any [del]bootlickers[/del] appointees at Treasury who might be induced to commit such an egregious, nefarious act as deleting SARs?
Mnuchin replaced the head of FinCEN days after Manafort was indicted.