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.