Who is saying these haven't been dealt with? Filing a SAR doesn't mean the person is guilty, as the name indicates it's just suspicious.

I dunno, but

Collateral Damage, Snowden panama papers...

Imagine if they spend 10% of resources that they spent going after leakers punishing real perpetrators.

They may be going after the real perpetrators.

If they are, they probably don't want the perpetrators to know how much information they have.

If so, their cases may have just been blown apart by these leaks, and the perpetrators are even less likely to get persecuted.

I could dig it up, but there was a leak about ten years ago where literally thousands of high wealth individuals were caught out hiding money from the IRS. And a a large US money manager was found to be helping thing them.

What happened?

Some people had to pay fines. The company paid a small fine with no charges filed. Leaker went to prison.

The system is completely corrupt.

They may, If they are, if so... but extremely doubtful given the history of prosecuting white collar crime in this and other countries.

Didn't we have many financial crime leaks this past decade with essentially no repercussions?

It seems to be widely believed that nothing came from the Panama Papers, but I think that's only because people hoped to see some CEOs perp-walked to a waiting cop car. There certainly have been repercussions.

>Twenty-three countries have already recovered at least US$1.2 billion in taxes, heads of government implicated in corruption or tax avoidance have resigned or faced prosecution and there have been investigations in at least 82 countries. Mossack Fonseca, the law firm at the centre of the story, has shut down and the Panama Papers have prompted high-level political debates and expedited policy reforms around the world

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/three-years-after-the-p...

How big of a proportion do you think that 1.2 billion is when compared to total amount of taxes avoided? I'd be willing to bet less than 1%. The company that was center of the documents no longer exists... and ctrl+f this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers it seems only one person from Venezuela was arrested (and his mom, but she was allowed to go home due to health reasons).

So it seems what I said is still correct... almost no repercussions for white collar crime across the globe. I'd bet it still occurs rampantly.

They... do? That’s what FINCEN is.

SARs are just spam. There is nothing to deal with. Its an odd name for a receipt that gets printed at the bank's discretion.

Can I just ask...WTAF are you talking about? Because you sound like a troll.

That a suspicious activity report is not indication of a crime, anything suspicious, and a lot of them get filed many times automatically

I would appreciate if you could point to some actual data (number of SARs per year in country, false positives...).

In 2019 for example, the US had 2.7 million SAR filings. (https://www.fincen.gov/reports/sar-stats, all industry types + year 2019 + all states), compared to a touch above 5,000 white collar federal prosecutions (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-collar-crime-prosecutions...). It's hard to directly calculate a "false positive rate" from those things, because some criminals may generate multiple SARs and others may simply go unprosecuted, but I think such a vast gulf is pretty inconsistent with an idea that most SARs report crimes.

It's certainly conventional wisdom in financial circles that a SAR is worth about as much as a user report on a Reddit comment.

I just don't find your cognitive dissonance to be relevant.

You’re asking for something to be proved - or supporting evidence that requires a whole dissertation - because your exposure is starting from a position that is fundamentally wrong.

“Suspicious” is a misnomer referring to an automatic reporting threshold, that in fewer additional circumstances allows for discretion in filing. The end.

> from a position that is fundamentally wrong

I’m baffled how asking for data is revealing my position?

I had the hope that your position is well founded and it would be easy to point to actual data.

I hardly believe that the compliance laws are not accompanied by studies that collect the data that i asked for. So it should be out there.

Like I said, I dont find your cognitive dissonance relevant enough to want to do that research for you. If you do research it, I hope the filter bubble Google put you in lets you get access to this version of reality.

Good luck.

SARs are just spam. There is nothing to deal with. No different than an oddly named receipt.

If it's "just spam" couldn't they be evaluated and closed quickly and thus become a non-issue for leakers?

It's very much like a mafia investigation. (In some cases it may well be a mafia investigation!) Most of the individual details you get are unreliable, insufficient, or just don't matter very much - but that doesn't mean there's no harm in leaking a list of them.

yes, they are a non-issue. you answered your own question. they are evaluated as spam. this leak is as dumb as you are close to thinking it is.