Use and Usefulness of CTRs

12.	Some agencies might use CTR data "reactively," by searching the CTR database after a suspect has already been identified to determine if the suspect or an associate had been the subject of a CTR report. Other agencies might use CTR data "proactively," without reference to an existing investigation or known suspect, to develop investigative leads by analyzing CTRs for data trends and patterns. Which of the following best describes your agency's use of CTR data?
	1.		Completely reactive
	2.		More reactive than proactive
	3.		About equally proactive and reactive
	4.		More proactive than reactive
	5.		Completely proactive
	6.		Don't know

13.	How often does your agency search CTR data when you launch a new investigation or examination?
	1.		Always
	2.		Very often
	3.		Fairly often
	4.		Sometimes
	5.		Almost never
	6.		Never
	7.		Not applicable

14.	In 2006, how often did CTR filings assist your agency in providing a basis for initiating a new investigation?
	1.		Always
	2.		Very often
	3.		Fairly often
	4.		Sometimes
	5.		Almost never
	6.		Never
	7.		Not applicable

15.	In 2006, when developing leads for existing investigations, how often did CTR filings assist your agency in each of the following ways?

		Always	Very often	Fairly often	Sometimes	Almost never	Never	Not applicable
	a. Identified potential subjects that were previously unknown
	b. Provided investigative leads that were previously unknown
	c. Identified assets that were previously unknown, including those that could be used for possible forfeiture action
	d. Verified or confirmed information about a suspect that was already known
	e. Eliminated subjects or narrowed the scope of the investigation
	f. Provided a basis for referring investigations to another agency for additional research
	g. Provided support to obtain a subpoena for related bank records

16.	In 2006, how often did CTR filings assist your agency in providing a basis for scoping and conducting BSA examinations?
	1.		Always
	2.		Very often
	3.		Fairly often
	4.		Sometimes
	5.		Almost never
	6.		Never
	7.		Not applicable

17.	In 2006, when prosecuting or bringing civil or administrative actions, how often did CTR filings assist your agency in each of the following ways?

		Always	Very often	Fairly often	Sometimes	Almost never	Never	Not applicable
	a. Provided a basis for obtaining evidence (i.e., bank records via a subpoena) that was used to make a criminal referral for criminal charges or seek an indictment
	b. Provided a basis for obtaining evidence (i.e., bank records via a subpoena) that was used to support a criminal conviction
	c. Used directly as evidence to make a criminal referral for criminal charges or seek an indictment
	d. Used directly as evidence to support a criminal conviction
	e. Used as support or evidence to obtain asset forfeiture
	f. Used as support or evidence in a regulatory civil or administrative action
	g. Other - Please describe below.

	IF OTHER: please describe.

18.	In 2006, how useful were CTR filings in identifying and developing investigations or prosecuting cases in each of the following ways?

		Extremely useful	Very useful	Moderately useful	Slightly useful	Not at all useful	Not applicable
	a. Identifying the need for new investigations (e.g., by identifying potential subjects)
	b. Developing leads for existing investigations (e.g., by tracking where transactions took place or the name of conductors)
	c. Prosecuting criminal cases where CTRs were used as evidence or used as a basis to obtain evidence (e.g., bank records)
	d. Bringing civil or administrative actions where CTRs were used as evidence or used as a basis to obtain evidence (e.g., bank records)

19.	What are 3 examples that you believe best illustrate how your organization used CTRs in 2006? If possible, please identify your examples as "proactive" or "reactive."

---

Full Report: GAO-08-355

Table of Contents | Previous | Next