Comment on FR Doc # E8-08955

June 16, 2008 VIA EMAIL Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury Vienna, VA Attention: Currency Transaction Report Exemptions Rule and Form Amendments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Proposed Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations – Exemptions from the Requirement to Report Transactions in Currency; Comment Request. South Carolina Bank and Trust, N.A. [SCBT] is a South Carolina based community bank with thirty-seven (37) offices. Regulatory compliance, including all aspects of the Bank Secrecy Act, is very important to us. The following information is being provided relative to the proposed amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations with respect to Exemptions from the Requirement to Report Transactions in Currency. A. Removing The Regulatory Requirement That Depository Institutions File Exemption Forms, And Annually Review The Supporting Information For Banks, Federal, State, And Local Government Agencies, And Entities Exercising Federal, State, Or Local Governmental Authority: • SCBT does believe this proposal will encourage depository institutions to avail themselves of Phase I exemptions for customers who are depository institutions, federal, state, and local government agencies, and entities exercising federal, state or local governmental authority. By making the process of exempting such customers, and maintaining the exemption, less onerous, more depository institutions are likely to seek out such customers for exemption status, especially given the fact that no other paperwork/documentation will be needed in the future (i.e. annual reviews), requiring additional employee dedication/hours and/or documentation retention. B. Removing The Regulatory Requirement That Depository Institutions Biennially Renew Phase II Exemptions: • Depository institutions should be required to file a revocation of exemption if they choose to no longer exempt an otherwise eligible customer in an effort to alert FinCEN and/or any other law enforcement agencies of potential “red flags” that led to the revocation. These “red flags” may be useful to law enforcement. • Depository institutions should be required to file renewed information, within 30 days of gaining knowledge that a modification and/or change of control has occurred. If the requirement continues to be that of every two years, there would be no reason to change the requirement of a bi-annual renewal, therefore not reducing much, if any, of the burden associated with maintaining Phase II exemptions. • This proposal would encourage depository institutions to avail themselves of Phase II exemptions, especially given the revision to revoke the requirement of bi-annually reporting updated change of control information. C. Permitting Depository Institutions to Exempt Otherwise Eligible Phase II Customers Who Frequently Engage In Large Cash Transactions within a Period of Time Shorter Than 12 Months: • It is preferable to adopt a regulatory requirement that depository institutions conduct a risk-based analysis of an otherwise eligible Phase II customer, in addition to recommending a minimum amount of time before the risk- based analysis can be applied for determining if an initial designation of exemption should be permitted. Depository institutions apply risk-based analyses of customers, activity, etc. each day, beginning at inception of the relationship. In actuality, a risk-based analysis is already being applied to determine if the customer meets all aspects of the current requirements in place to qualify for Phase II exemption status. • However, presently 12 months is the timeframe required to consider a Phase II entity for exemption status. If the timeframe were reduced to at least 2-6 months, a depository institution would be able to gain knowledge of the customer’s transactional patterns within that time, applying risk-based analysis to all other contributing factors to determine if Phase II eligibility should be considered within the given timeframe or if more history is needed prior to making a determination. • Eight (8) is a reasonable number of reportable transactions to deem a customer eligible for Phase II exemption status. However, if decreasing the timeframe requirement to be considered a Phase II entity, and allowing depository institutions to use a risk-based analysis to deem a customer eligible for Phase II exemption status, the depository institution should be able to determine an appropriate number of “reasonable” reportable transactions based on a number of factors (type of business, length of time as a customer, types of transactions, etc.). • This proposal will more than likely encourage depository institutions to avail themselves of Phase II exemptions since the process of approval will be less onerous and each can implement appropriate policies/procedures based on the risk factors of their particular depository institution. South Carolina Bank and Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments. If additional information is needed or there are questions about any of the information in this letter, please contact Becky Robertson, CAMS, AMLP, Vice President - Bank Secrecy Officer. Sincerely, Becky Robertson Becky Robertson, CAMS, AMLP Vice President – Bank Secrecy Officer Phone: 803-231-3548 Fax: 803-794-5165 Email: rebecca.robertson@scbtonline.com