Which of the following is NOT a common SAR narrative mistake?

• A. Not properly identifying the suspect
• B. Not correctly identifying transactions or date range
• C. Insufficient detail or unorganized thoughts
• D. Missing signature on the SAR

Answer: (D)

In SAR narratives, the focus is on presenting a clear, complete story of the suspicious activity: who is involved, what occurred, when and where it happened, and why the activity appears suspicious. The narrative should be organized, logically flowing, and rich with specific, relevant facts that support the red flags.

Common missteps in the narrative are about the content and how the story is told. Not properly identifying the suspect can lead to confusion about who the concerns are directed at. Not correctly identifying transactions or the date range can blur the timeline and the pattern you’re trying to show. Insufficient detail or disorganized thoughts make the narrative hard to follow and can hide connections between events.

Missing a signature on the SAR, while important for compliance and internal approval, concerns the administrative aspect of filing rather than the narrative content itself. It doesn’t affect the accuracy or clarity of the story being told, so it isn’t considered a common narrative mistake.