Does it matter if a law is valid if the Government refuses to enforce it? For months, we have watched (and blogged on) courts grappling with the constitutionality and enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). While, as we have blogged most recently here, courts have produced mixed returns on the validity of the
Developments concerning the enforceability and enforcement of the CTA came at a rapid clip this week. As things stand, the government may enforce the CTA pending a Texas court appeal in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. FinCEN indicated its intent to enforce the CTA but provided reporting companies with a revised deadline
The Fifth Circuit has granted the government’s request to stay temporarily the order and injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which had issued a nationwide stay prohibiting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).
As we have blogged, on December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., the Eastern District of Texas issued an order (“Order”) granting a nationwide preliminary injunction that: (1) enjoined the CTA, including enforcement of that statute and regulations implementing its beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, and, specifically, (2) stayed all deadlines to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements.
The Order created great uncertainty, if not chaos, because the CTA’s reporting deadline for covered entities existing prior to January 1, 2024 was January 1, 2025. The uncertainty regarding the status of the CTA was exacerbated last week during the looming federal showdown, in which the initially proposed budget stop-gap bill included language which would have extended the CTA’s filing deadline for previously-existing covered entities by one year. But, that initial spending bill did not pass, and the spending bill which ultimately did pass did not include any language regarding the CTA.
Nonetheless, these political machinations suggest that the CTA and its implementation may face a rocky road when the new administration takes over in January 2025. The CTA could be undone by Congress, or just not enforced by a new administration. Or the implementing regulations could be revised significantly. It’s very hard to predict right now.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Halts Nationwide Stay of CTA Enforcement
In a closely watched and complicated case, Van Loon et al. v. Dep’t of the Treasury et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) cannot sanction Tornado Cash, “an open-source, crypto-transactions software protocol that facilitates anonymous transactions by obfuscating the origins and destinations of digital asset transfers.” The opinion, which reversed the ruling of the District Court, is here. A recording of the oral argument is here. The opinion is complex but written in a very clear style.
We previously blogged on OFAC’s designation of Tornado Cash (here) and the resulting civil suit (here). We also covered the indictment returned against the alleged developers of Tornado Cash, Roman Storm and Roman Semenov, who were charged with conspiring to commit money laundering, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and violating sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA (here). The DOJ subsequently obtained a superseding indictment against Storm only (here); Storm’s trial currently is scheduled for April 2025). When the initial indictment was unsealed, Treasury simultaneously sanctioned Semenov, who remains outside the U.S., by adding him to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN”) List.
These actions are a reminder that, putting aside the complex issues presented by the Fifth Circuit decision regarding OFAC’s (in)ability to sanction a technology, law enforcement and regulators still can pursue people for related alleged conduct. And, invariably, people are involved in a technology.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rejects OFAC Designation of Tornado Cash Immutable Smart Contracts
As we previously blogged, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (“FinCEN”) published Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers (“Final Rule”) regarding residential real estate. The Final Rule, set to go into effect on December 1, 2025, institutes a new Bank Secrecy Act reporting form – the “Real Estate Report” (“Report”) – which imposes a nation-wide reporting requirement for the details of residential real estate transactions, subject to certain exceptions, in which the buyer is a covered entity or trust.
FinCEN has now published the proposed Report, which is here, and requested comments within 60 days. The Reports are to be filed through FinCEN’s electronic online reporting system.
Continue Reading FinCEN Issues Proposed Reporting Form for Residential Real Estate Deals
In the possible final stage of the Alpine Securities saga (as we blogged about here, here and here), Judge Clark Waddopous of the United States District Court for the District of Utah issued an opinion granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by plaintiff brokerage firm Scottsdale Capital Advisors (“SCA”).
SCA’s suit, distilled greatly, challenged the SEC’s authority to enforce, administer and interpret the Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) regulations issued under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and incorporated into the securities laws. What makes this case interesting is that the SEC did not impose penalties for failure to comply with the SAR requirements against SCA; rather, the agency sought penalties against SCA’s contractual partner, Alpine Securities Corporation (“Alpine”), a Salt Lake City-based brokerage firm. SCA became involved because it agreed to act as an introducing broker-dealer for transactions cleared through Alpine. SCA’s amended complaint alleged that it had suffered harm as a result of the SEC’s improper enforcement action against Alpine.
The ultimate reason the Court dismissed the suit is because SCA had to show standing under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 550, et seq., (“APA”) and failed to satisfy this requirement because there was neither a “final agency action” nor an “injury” for APA purposes.
The opinion is important because all types of financial institutions covered by the BSA routinely enter into contracts with third parties (which themselves may or may not be covered by the BSA) involving the fulfillment of anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance requirements. These relationships can involve fintech-bank partnerships, third parties tasked with collecting customer information, and much more. As the opinion reflects, if a regulator goes after an entity’s contractual partner for alleged AML failures, that entity can suffer downstream consequences – including a contract and indemnification dispute – with little to no ability to affect the regulator’s actions through the APA.
Various industry groups have filed lawsuits in multiple federal districts challenging the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The first such suit, filed in the Northern District of Alabama, resulted in a ruling by the District Court that the CTA was unconstitutional because Congress lacked the authority to enact the CTA. The government appealed this ruling, and the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on Friday, September 27. As we discuss below, the tenor of the argument suggests, although hardly compels, the conclusion that the Eleventh Circuit will reverse the holding of the District Court.
Further, one week prior to the oral argument, on September 20, the District of Oregon rejected a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the CTA, finding in part that plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits in regards to a broad spectrum of constitutional claims. Although the District of Oregon did not issue a dispositive ruling on the merits, given the particular procedural posture of the case, the tenor of the opinion strongly suggests that plaintiffs’ lawsuit faces an uphill battle, at best.
Given the importance of the CTA and the existence of several other similar lawsuits in other federal districts challenging the CTA, both of these developments have been watched closely. FinCEN has estimated that over 30 million existing entities need to file reports regarding their beneficial owners (“BOs”) under the CTA by January 1, 2025. FinCEN also has indicated that, to date, only a small percentage of covered entities have done so. To the extent that entities may have been waiting to file their reports until a more clear picture of the CTA litigations materializes, they presumably should stop waiting. Although it is possible that a circuit split could develop, and that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could address and resolve the constitutionality of the CTA, the CTA still remains in force—with the current exception of entities affected by the District of Alabama ruling—and presumably will remain in force past January 1, 2025.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has published a two-page reference guide (“Guide”) comparing the requirements for reporting beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) with the current requirements for covered entity customers to report BOI to their financial institutions (“FIs”) under the Bank Secrecy Act’s Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) Rule.
Entitled “Notice to Customers: Beneficial Ownership Information Reference Guide,” the Guide is styled as a reference tool for business customers of banks who also are covered by the CTA. It is predominated by a chart, which we set forth at the end of this blog post, setting forth the differences in what information needs to be reported under the different reporting regimes. But, as we discuss, the Guide also serves as a reminder to FIs — intentionally or not — that they soon will be required to revamp their long-standing CDD Rule compliance systems.
Continue Reading FinCEN Highlights Differences in CDD Rule and CTA Reporting of BOI
In this post, we will once again consider the issue of the utility of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) filings to the global anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) compliance regime.
In our first blog post in this series, we invited Don Fort, a former Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation (CI) Division, to answer questions on utility of BSA filings from the perspective of law enforcement. Here, we will discuss two recent publications by industry groups: one by the Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Technology Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Gaming Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (collectively, the Associations), and another by the Wolfsberg Group, which is an association of 12 global banks which aims to develop frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks.
The Associations respond to an estimate by the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) concerning the time required to complete a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). The Associations’ observations on SAR filing compliance costs are targeted and precise and serve as a good segue into the broader critiques and recommendations made by the Wolfsberg Group regarding overall AML/CFT reporting and how it might be more effective.
Continue Reading BSA Filings and Their Utility to Law Enforcement: An Industry Viewpoint
Today we are very pleased to welcome guest blogger, Don Fort, who is the Director of Investigations at Kostelanetz LLP, and the past Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation (CI) Division.
As Chief of IRS-CI from 2017 to 2020, Don led the sixth largest U.S. law enforcement agency, managing a budget of over $625 million and a worldwide staff of approximately 3,000, including 2,100 special agents in 21 IRS field offices and 11 foreign countries. Don’s time in law enforcement included overseeing investigations of some of the most significant financial crimes involving tax evasion, sanctions evasion, money laundering, bribery, international corruption, bank malfeasance, cyber and cryptocurrency crimes, and terrorist financing.
We reached out to Don because we were interested in his perspective on the 2023 Year-in-Review (YIR) published by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), on which we previously blogged. According to the YIR, there are about 294,000 financial institutions and other e-filers registered to file Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports with FinCEN. Collectively, they filed during FY 2023 a total of 4.6 million Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and 20.8 million Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs), as well as 1.6 million Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs), 421,500 Forms 8300 regarding cash payments over $10,000 received in a trade or business, and 143,200 Reports of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIRs) for certain cross-border transactions exceeding $10,000. Although the YIR necessarily represents only a snapshot lacking full context, only a very small portion of those filings ever became relevant to actual federal criminal investigations. But, the YIR makes clear that one of the most, or the most, important consumers of BSA filings is IRS-CI.
In our next related blog, we will discuss the utility of filings in the global anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism compliance regime, from the perspective of industry – specifically, recent publications by the Wolfsberg Group, and the Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Technology Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Gaming Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
This blog post again takes the form of a Q&A session, in which Don responds to questions posed by Money Laundering Watch about the impact of BSA filings, from the perspective of IRS-CI. We hope you enjoy this discussion on this important topic. – Peter Hardy and Siana Danch
Continue Reading BSA Filings and Their Utility to Law Enforcement: A Guest Blog