FinCEN Issues New Guidance on SAR Filings (October 2025)

On October 9, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document clarifying how financial institutions should handle Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).

Developed in coordination with the Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC, this new guidance aims to remove ambiguity, reduce unnecessary administrative work, and help financial institutions file more meaningful reports that better support law enforcement investigations.

Key Clarifications in the New FAQs

1. Transactions Near the $10,000 Threshold

FinCEN reaffirmed that transactions at or near $10,000 do not automatically trigger a SAR.

A report is required only if there is actual knowledge, suspicion, or reason to suspect that a customer structured transactions specifically to avoid the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) requirement.

Why it matters: This clarification discourages defensive or automatic filing practices. Instead, institutions are expected to use judgment based on risk, context, and customer activity. The goal is to identify deliberate structuring behavior, not coincidental transaction patterns.

2. Structuring and Risk-Based Monitoring

FinCEN emphasized that structuring can occur in any form including multiple smaller transactions across accounts, branches, or institutions to evade the CTR threshold.

Institutions should maintain risk-based monitoring systems capable of identifying potential structuring patterns proportionate to their size and exposure.

Why it matters: This guidance reinforces the move toward adaptive AML programs. Smaller institutions may rely on manual review, while larger ones should implement automated transaction monitoring calibrated to their risk profile.

3. Continuing Activity SARs and the 90-Day Option

Historically, FinCEN suggested that institutions file continuing SARs every 90 days for ongoing suspicious activity.

The 2025 FAQs clarify that this is no longer a strict requirement but an optional framework that institutions may adopt if it suits their monitoring schedule.

If following the 90-day approach, FinCEN recommends:

Why it matters: Institutions now have greater flexibility. They can set their own timelines based on internal systems, ensuring SAR filings remain relevant and efficient.

4. No Obligation to Conduct Separate Post-SAR Reviews

Once a SAR is filed, institutions do not have to manually review the same activity again solely to determine whether it continued.

They may rely on their existing monitoring mechanisms to alert them to new or continued suspicious behavior.

Why it matters: This reduces redundant workload and encourages reliance on data-driven alerting systems rather than repetitive manual investigations.

5. “No-SAR” Decisions: Documentation Is Optional

FinCEN confirmed there is no federal requirement or expectation to document a decision not to file a SAR.

While some institutions may find internal notes helpful, a brief summary or no record at all is acceptable under federal standards.

Why it matters: This change eliminates the fear of over-documenting low-risk cases, allowing compliance teams to allocate more time to substantive investigations.

Broader Compliance Implications

The 2025 FAQs mark a shift toward intelligence-led compliance, encouraging quality over volume in suspicious activity reporting.

Key takeaways for compliance teams:

• Focus on substance, not form. The intent behind suspicious activity is more important than the dollar amount.
• Automate wisely. Systems should be tuned to detect unusual behavior patterns, not just threshold triggers.
• Empower analysts. Compliance professionals are encouraged to use discretion rather than file defensively.
• Update internal policies. Institutions should revisit SAR filing procedures and training materials to reflect the clarified expectations.

Why It Matters to the AML Community

For law enforcement and financial intelligence units, fewer but higher-quality SARs mean better visibility into real criminal activity.

For financial institutions, this clarity reduces operational strain and supports proportionate, risk-based compliance, a cornerstone of modern AML frameworks.

In essence, FinCEN is telling the industry: “File smarter, not more.”