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.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued a notice and request for comment (“Notice”) on the proposed form to collect and report to FinCEN the beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) for entities covered by the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). We have blogged extensively on the
As we have blogged (here, here, here, here and here), the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“the AMLA”) amended the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to expand whistleblower incentives and strengthen whistleblower protections. At a high level, the AMLA amended 31 U.S.C. § 5323 to provide that if the government recovers
Farewell to 2022, and welcome 2023. As we do every year, let’s look back.
We highlight 12 of our most-read blog posts from 2022, which address many of the key issues we’ve examined during the past year: the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and beneficial ownership reporting; sanctions — particularly sanctions involving Russia; cryptocurrency and digital
On December 16, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a 54-page notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) regarding access by authorized recipients to beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) that will be reported to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The CTA requires covered entities – including most domestic corporations and foreign entities registered to do business in the U.S. – to report BOI and company applicant information to a database created and run by FinCEN upon the entities’ creation or registration within the U.S. This database will be accessible by U.S. and foreign law enforcement and regulators, and to U.S. financial institutions (“FIs”) seeking to comply with their own Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) compliance obligations, which requires covered FIs to obtain BOI from many entity customers when they open up new accounts.
In regards to this NPRM, FinCEN’s declared goal is to ensure that
(1) only authorized recipients have access to BOI; (2) authorized recipients use that access only for purposes permitted by the CTA; and (3) authorized recipients only redisclose BOI in ways that balance protection of the security and confidentiality of the BOI with furtherance of the CTA’s objective of making BOI available to a range of users for purposes specified in the CTA.
Further, FinCEN has indicated that, “[c]oincident with the protocols described in this NPRM, FinCEN is working to develop a secure, non-public database in which to store BOI, using rigorous information security methods and controls typically used in the Federal government to protect non-classified yet sensitive information systems at the highest security levels.”
The comment period for the NPRM is 60 days. The NPRM proposes an effective date of January 1, 2024, consistent with when the final BOI reporting rule at 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380 becomes effective. The proposed BOI access regulations will be set forth separately at 31 C.F.R. § 1010.955, rather than existing 31 C.F.R. § 1010.950, which governs the disclosure of other Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) information.
This NPRM relates to the second of three sets of regulations which FinCEN ultimately will issue under the CTA. As we have blogged (here and here), FinCEN already has issued regulations regarding the BOI reporting obligation itself. FinCEN still must issue proposed regulations on “reconciling” the new BOI reporting regulations and the existing CDD regulations applicable to covered FIs for obtaining BOI from their own entity customers.
As we discuss, the lengthy NPRM suggests answers to some questions, but it of course also raises other questions. Although domestic and even foreign government agencies will have generally broad access to the BOI database, assuming that they satisfy various requirements, the NPRM’s proposed access for FIs to the BOI database is relatively limited.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced (here and here) yesterday that virtual currency exchange Payward, Inc. – better known as Kraken – has agreed to pay $362,158.70 in order to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of the sanctions against Iran. Kraken also has agreed to invest an additional $100,000 in certain sanctions compliance controls. According to OFAC, “[d]ue to Kraken’s failure to timely implement appropriate geolocation tools, including an automated internet protocol (IP) address blocking system, Kraken exported services to users who appeared to be in Iran when they engaged in virtual currency transactions on Kraken’s platform.”
Compared to OFAC’s recent settlement with Bittrex, which agreed to pay a total of $29,280,829.20 to OFAC and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) in order to resolve allegations of sanctions and Bank Secrecy Act violations, the settlement amount is relatively low – and, as OFAC noted in its announcement, Kraken faced an astronomical statutory maximum civil monetary penalty of $272,228,964. OFAC has stated that “[t]he settlement amount reflects OFAC’s determination that Kraken’s apparent violations were non-egregious and voluntarily self-disclosed.”
Today we are very pleased to welcome, once again, guest blogger Dr. Kateryna Boguslavska of the Basel Institute on Governance (“Basel Institute”), who will discuss the Basel Institute’s recent release of the Basel AML Index for 2022 (the “Index”). The data-rich annual Index is a research-based ranking that assesses countries’ risk exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing. It is one of several excellent online tools developed by the Basel Institute to help both public- and private-sector practitioners tackle financial crime. We are excited to continue this annual dialogue between the Basel Institute and Money Laundering Watch.
Established in 2003, the Basel Institute, an Associated Institute of the University of Basel, is a not-for-profit Swiss foundation dedicated to working with public and private partners around the world to prevent and combat corruption. The Institute’s work involves action, advice and research on issues including anti-corruption collective action, asset recovery, corporate governance and compliance, and more.
Dr. Kateryna Boguslavska is Project Manager for the Basel AML Index at the Basel Institute. A political scientist, she holds a PhD in Political Science from the National Academy of Science in Ukraine, a master’s degree in Comparative and International Studies from ETH Zurich as well as a master’s degree in Political Science from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine. Before joining the Basel Institute, Dr. Boguslavska worked at Chatham House in London as an Academy Fellow for the Russia and Eurasia program.
This blog post again takes the form of a Q & A session, in which Dr. Boguslavska responds to several questions posed by Money Laundering Watch about the Basel AML Index 2022. We hope you enjoy this discussion of global money laundering risks — which addresses enforcement, virtual assets, environmental crime, AML for lawyers, how the U.S. is performing, and more. –Peter Hardy
Continue Reading The Basel AML Index 2022: One Step Forward, Four Steps Back. A Guest Blog.
The European Commission (“Commission”) recently released its 2022 Supranational Risk Assessment Report (“SNRA Report”) to the European Parliament and Counsel regarding the “risk of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the internal market and relating to cross-border activities.” The SNRA Report analyzes, on a broad scale, money laundering and terrorism financing risks and proposes a plan of action to address them. The Report also examines more specifically “sectors or products where relevant changes have been detected.”
The SNRA Report flags the “Gambling Sector” as a “high risk” area of Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (“CFT”) concern, with a particular focus on online gambling. According to the Commission, online gambling presents a particularly high AML/CFT risk due to factors such as “the non-face-to face element, [and] huge and complex volumes of transactions and financial flows.” The potential use of e-money and virtual currencies, as well as the emergence of unlicensed online gambling sites, exacerbates this risk.
As the European Union (“EU”) considers how to tackle the potential risks of online gambling, the United States is simultaneously grappling with the rapid expansion of online gambling and online sports betting in particular. Before May 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively banned commercial sports betting in most states, Nevada was the only state with legalized sports betting in the United States. Although California ballot Proposition 27, which would have legalized online and mobile sports betting in California, failed to pass during last week’s national and state elections, more than 30 states still have legalized some form of sports betting, and there is politial pressure to continue to expand online gambling and other forms of gaming. As Americans jockey for the immense potential receipts that the expansion of online gambling can bring, it may be worth taking a page out of the EU’s book in order to consider the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks that can accompany it.
Continue Reading European Commission Highlights Online Gambling’s Money Laundering Risks
FinCEN announced yesterday that, once again, it is extending the Geographic Targeting Order, or GTO, which requires U.S. title insurance companies to identify the natural persons behind so-called “shell companies” used in purchases of residential real estate not involving a mortgage. FinCEN also has expanded slightly the reach of the GTOs.
The new GTO is
We are extremely pleased to offer a podcast (here) on the legal and logistical issues facing financial institutions as they implement the regulations issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA) and the Corporate Transparency Act
As we just blogged, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued a final rule (“Final Rule”) regarding the beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirements pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The Final Rule will require tens of millions of corporations and limited liability companies registered to do business in the United States to report their BOI to FinCEN. FinCEN views this development as a “historic step in support of U.S. government efforts to crack down on illicit finance and enhance transparency.”
The Final Rule defines a “beneficial owner” whose information must be reported as “any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over such reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of such reporting company.” In this post, we focus on the “substantial control” prong of the beneficial ownership definition: “any individual who, directly or indirectly, . . . exercises substantial control over such reporting company.” (emphasis added). The Final Rule generally adopts the language of the proposed rule issued by FinCEN in December 2021, with some minor adjustments.
FinCEN expects reporting companies to always identify at least one beneficial owner under the “substantial control” prong, even if all other individuals are subject to an exclusion or fail to satisfy the “ownership interests” prong. As we will discuss, the Final Rule contemplates that a covered reporting company may need to report multiple individuals under the “substantial control” prong. Further, and although FinCEN still needs to issue proposed regulations regarding the following, the Final Rule’s broad definition of the “substantial control” prong under the CTA presumably will lead to FinCEN expanding the definition of “beneficial owner” under the existing Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) rule applicable to banks and other financial institutions (“FIs”).