So, how does the Fed boost the economy?

"BAR" <ScrewYou.RemoveThis@Your.Place> wrote in message
news:pOGdnYS_zv0olkranZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> John wrote:
>> "HK" <payer33859.RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>> news:63o0flF28kg9dU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> <LoogyPicker.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:98d545e4-b188-466c-8eb0-549ab36add51@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
>>>>> and loan it to banks!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/markets/markets_morning/index.htm?eref...s_topst
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

"Tim" <tschnautz RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d515b109-fa18-44ae-905f-accdbd161bb7@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 6:06 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em... RemoveThis @swsportsremove.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:10 -0500, John H.
>
> <jherringnumerical... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.story
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

thunder DeleteThis @TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
<"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote:

>thunder@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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 "@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> thunder.DeleteThis@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
news:dggft35bv0obnifkj3rfcqedd1lpbeoff5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

Eisboch wrote:
> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.TakeThisOut@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
> news:dggft35bv0obnifkj3rfcqedd1lpbeoff5@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
>> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5-dne8TfJwIXUranZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@comcast.com...
> thunder.TakeThisOut@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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?
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_idnVsMZauqWEranZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
>> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> thunder.RemoveThis@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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?
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Reginald P. Smithers III" <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:z_idnVsMZauqWEranZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
>>> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> thunder RemoveThis @TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

"BAR" <ScrewYou.DeleteThis@Your.Place> wrote in message
news:IqWdnQS2IoMUSUranZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Reginald P. Smithers III" <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:z_idnVsMZauqWEranZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
>>>> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> thunder.DeleteThis@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy? 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "BAR" <ScrewYou.RemoveThis@Your.Place> wrote in message
> news:IqWdnQS2IoMUSUranZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Reginald P. Smithers III" <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:z_idnVsMZauqWEranZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
>>>>> <"Reggie is Here "@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> thunder.RemoveThis@TAKEOUTgti.net 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/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.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.
 >> Stay informed about: So, how does the Fed boost the economy?