Peter D. Hardy

Subscribe to Peter D. Hardy's Posts

hardyp@ballardspahr.com | 215.864.8838 | view full bio

Peter is a national thought leader on money laundering, tax fraud, and other financial crime. He is the author of Criminal Tax, Money Laundering, and Bank Secrecy Act Litigation, a comprehensive legal treatise published by Bloomberg BNA.  Peter co-chairs the Practising Law Institute's Anti-Money Laundering program, and serves on the Steering Committee for the Cambridge Forum on Sanctions & AML Compliance

He advises corporations and individuals from many industries against allegations of misconduct ranging from money laundering, tax fraud, mortgage fraud and lending law violations, securities fraud, and public corruption.  He also advises on compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering requirements.  Peter handles complex litigation involving allegations of fraud or other misconduct.

Peter spent more than a decade as a federal prosecutor before entering private practice, serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia working on financial crime cases. He was a trial attorney for the Criminal Section of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division in Washington, D.C.

Follow:Read more about Peter D. HardyPeter's Linkedin Profile

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

New State Laws Create Tension with Federal AML Requirements

An increasing number of states have either enacted or are considering enacting legislation requiring financial institutions to provide persons (both existing customers and prospective customers) who are not ordinarily protected by the federal anti-discrimination statutes with “fair access” to financial services.

For example, and as we…

Card Club Will Pay $900,000 and Undertake AML Program Review

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has entered into a Consent Order with the Sahara Dunes Casino, doing business as the Lake Elsinore Hotel and Casino (“Lake Elsinore”).  The Consent Order describes Lake Elsinore, located in California, as a “medium-sized card club” with 22 tables offering card games such as poker.

In the Consent Order, Lake Elsinore has admitted to willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), including failing to implement and maintain an effective Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) compliance program, failing to file Currency Transaction Reports (“CTRs”) and Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”), and recordkeeping failures involving a negotiable instruments log, which is supposed to list each transaction between a casino or card club and its customers involving certain monetary instruments with a face value of $3,000 or more. Lake Elsinore has agreed to pay a $900,000 penalty and be subject to an AML program review. 

The conduct at issue in the Consent Order is old:  it occurred from about September 2014 through February 2019.  The enforcement action arose from a 2017 examination of Lake Elsinore by the California Bureau of Gambling Control (“CABGC”).  The Consent Order illustrates how a federal enforcement action can flow from a state regulatory agency working with FinCEN – as well as just how long that process can take.  The Consent Order further illustrates that some BSA-covered institutions will operate with little to no day-to-day AML compliance until an exam occurs.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Consent Order Against Card Club for “Fundamentally Unsound” AML Program

The Bank Policy Institute (“BPI”) has issued its comment on the Federal Functional Regulators’ (the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, and the National Credit Union Administration) notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to modernize financial institutions’ anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing (“AML/CFT”) programs (“Comment”). The agencies’ NPRM, on which we blogged here, is consistent with FinCEN’s similar and earlier AML/CFT modernization proposal (“FinCEN’s NPRM”), on which we blogged here (please also see our podcast on these regulatory proposals here). 

The Comment, which generally tracks BPI’s earlier comment on FinCEN’s NPRM, is detailed and 23-pages long.  We only summarize it here.  The Comment is not a positive proponent of the NPRM and suggests significant changes.

Broadly, the Comment initially asserts that “[t]he proposed rule will neither implement the intent of Congress in enacting the AML Act nor facilitate a risk-based approach to identifying and disrupting financial crime.”  Likewise, the Comment asserts that “[i]n practice, [bank] examiners are exactingly focused on technical compliance . . . rather than effectiveness.  This approach is utterly divorced from a focus on management of true risk.”  According to BPI, “the status quo examination oversight of [the AML/CFT] regime does not expressly instruct institutions to dedicate efforts to detecting suspected crime or engaging in innovation to this end—efforts that are surely foundational to the integrity of the banking and financial system.” 

The Comment also fires a shot across the bow by suggesting the possibility of future litigation by stating – albeit in a footnote – that “BPI has significant concerns that the proposed rule does not align with the letter and spirit of the AML Act and provides for arbitrary procedural requirements that could render the rule vulnerable to challenge [under the Administrative Procedures Act].”

The Comment then dives into the details. 

Continue Reading  Bank Policy Institute Critiques Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Modernize AML/CFT Programs

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.

Continue Reading  Corporate Transparency Act Litigation Update:  Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument, and District of Oregon Rejects Preliminary Injunction Enjoining CTA Enforcement

On August 29, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (“FinCEN”) published Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers (“Final Rule”) regarding residential real estate.  The Federal Register publication is 37 pages long.  We have created a separate document which sets forth only the provisions of the Final Rule, at 31 C.F.R. § 1031.320, here.

The Final Rule institutes a new BSA reporting form – the “Real Estate Report” (“Report”) –which imposes a nation-wide reporting requirement for the details of residential real estate transactions, subject to some exceptions, in which the buyer is a covered entity or trust.  As expected, FinCEN has adopted a “cascade” approach to who is responsible for filing a Report, specifically implicating – among others – title agencies, escrow companies, settlement agents, and lawyers. 

Importantly, the person filing the Report may reasonably rely on information provided by others.  Parties involved in a covered transaction also may agree as to who must file the Report.  However, the Final Rule does not allow for incomplete reports, which likely will create practical problems.

The Final Rule does not require covered businesses to implement and maintain comprehensive anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance programs or file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”), like many other institutions covered by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).  FinCEN has indicated that separate proposed rulemaking on commercial real estate transactions is forthcoming.  However, the existence of a commercial element with a property does not automatically except a transfer from the Final Rule.  For example, the transfer of a property that consists of a single-family residence that is located above a commercial enterprise is covered if all of the other reporting criteria are met.

FinCEN has published a Fact Sheet which summarizes the basics of the Final Rule.  FinCEN also has published an eight-page set of FAQs on the Final Rule.  The Final Rule will be effective on December 1, 2025.  FinCEN has not yet issued a proposed form of the Report.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Final BSA Reporting Requirements for Residential Real Estate Deals

With Guest Speaker Nick St. John

We are very fortunate to have Nick St. John, Director of Federal Compliance at America’s Credit Unions, as our guest speaker in this podcast on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and federal banking regulators regarding the enhancement and modernization of anti-money…

On August 1, 2024, the Department of Justice launched its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (the “Pilot Program”). Under this 3-year initiative managed by DOJ’s Criminal Division, a whistleblower may be eligible for an award of up to $50 million if she provides DOJ with information about corporate misconduct in certain industries.  As described in greater detail in the program guidance and below, the information must relate to at least one of four areas, including certain crimes relating to financial institutions, foreign corruption by companies, domestic corruption by companies and federal health care offenses involving private or other non-public health care benefit programs.

The Pilot Program has particular implications for financial institutions (“FIs”) and their anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) compliance program personnel. Real-world application of the Pilot Program presumably will reveal the practical interplay (and possible tensions) between the Pilot Program and the relatively new whistleblower provisions under Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) created by the Anti-Money Laundering Act (“AML Act”), on which we have blogged frequently (see here, here, here, here, here and here).

Continue Reading  DOJ Unveils Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program – With Implications for Financial Institutions and AML/CFT Compliance Personnel

Thereby Highlighting Need for Future Changes to Banks’ CDD Rule Systems

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