314(b) and SARs: An Approach to Consider
On June 12, 2026, FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) issued updated guidance clarifying how financial institutions can share information about suspected fraud under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act. For years AML Officer have been promised further guidance on the use of 314(b) information requests regarding fraud, and the guidance has been well received.
If you’re an AML Officer filing SARs, the FinCEN guidance was important to you because a response received from another institution based on your 314(b) information request can have a meaningful impact on your decision to file a SAR or not. For example, assume you’ve received an alert from your AML system regarding potentially suspicious fraudulent activity on your longtime customer’s account. Upon review, you deem the activity to be unusual and an anomaly, but the question remains: Is it suspicious and does it rise to the level of a SAR? Since it’s the first alert you’ve received for this customer, who is not a high-risk customer type, you send two 314(b) requests to two separate institutions and clear the alert with a paragraph indicating that a 314(b) requests were sent to XYZ Bank and ABC Bank on xx/xx/2026, and that the alert may be reopened and actioned based upon the results of that 314(b) request.
From here, three things can happen. 1) You receive information back that explains the activity and adds no further suspicion to the transactions. You add a comment to the alert, noting that the decision to clear is upheld. 2) You receive information back from at least one of the institutions that adds further suspicion to your customer’s transactions regarding potential fraud. You reopen the alert, add the additional information, and escalate to a Case Investigation. Although it took a month to get the 314(b) information back, you won’t have a late SAR because your date of determination will be determined by the Case Investigation. The Case should be prioritized for a timely resolution, but you can argue that without the 314(b) information, you didn’t have a SAR worthy situation. 3) You receive no information back. You add a comment to the alert, and watch for further activity.
How each AML system handles the above workflows may differ, but what matters is that your written procedures clearly discuss each scenario. We’ve performed audits and independent testing where the AML Officer will say “our procedures sort of discuss this on page xx of the investigations procedure,” but that won't suffice in this situation. There are many times when the transactions you see and information you know do not rise to the level of SAR, but when that information is combined with the results of a 314(b) request, the activity suddenly does rise to the level of SAR.
Be crystal clear in your written procedures about how you handle this. Ask someone in your department to challenge you on the quality and clarity of your written procedures with respect to how these situations are handled, and use the outcome to add additional clarifying language to those written procedures.
We feel it’s important to discuss 314(b) responses and SARs at this juncture because we anticipate (and hope) that the volume of 314(b) requests and responses regarding fraud will increase, and that this change will have an impact on the number and quality of SARs being filed. There is no better time to update written procedures than when things change.
