Well, remember that a SAR under the AML laws is basically a computer implementation of Fed regulations that automatically generates the SARs. Presumably, they are reviewed by someone before being filed, but this would typically be a low-level DDA account auditor/security enforcer.
It is possible that he saw the who the account was, asked his boss, and go told “it’s OK” based on the presumed nature of Madoff’s business. But no banker would dare risk suppressing these reports for business reasons. The banks usually have rules prohibiting even talking to the customer’s relationship manager about such matters.
You’re right, I *agree* with you, and that is how it works.
But the GAO found that SAR filings are increasing, and it wonders whether SAR’s are being filed as a “CYA” by the bankers, possibly flooding the system with noise:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09226.pdf
Why, given the filing in the UK, would JPM have kept looking the other way?
Well, the amount of business they had with Madoff, and the loans they extended to him... that might color their opinion on whether or not to kick over this particular hornet’s nest. Especially, when one considers the amounts, it would really draw some attention within FinCEN...
If you or I worked at JPM, I’m sure we could have been covering our tushies with a SAR — especially considering the amount being wired to “high risk” offshore locations. That’s a big red flag for the FBI for drug money and terrorism now...