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.

Seventh Post in an Extended Series on Legislative Changes to BSA/AML Regulatory Regime

On April 5, 2021, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) to solicit public comment on questions pertaining to the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), passed as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”).  The CTA requires certain legal entities to report their beneficial owners at the time of their creation to a database accessible by U.S. and foreign law enforcement and regulators, and to U.S. financial institutions seeking to comply with their own Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) and Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) compliance obligations.

According to the ANPRM, the ability to operate through legal entities without requiring the identification of beneficial owners is a key risk for the U.S. financial system.  The CTA seeks to mitigate the risk by reducing an individual’s ability to use corporate structures to conceal illicit activity such as money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud and human and drug trafficking.  The CTA seeks to set a clear federal standard for incorporation practices, protect vital U.S. national security interests, protect interstate and foreign commerce, better enable various law enforcement agencies to counter illicit activities and bring the U.S. into compliance with international standards.  With the goals of the CTA in mind, the ANPRM seeks public input on procedures and standards for reporting companies to submit information to FinCEN about their beneficial owners, and input on the implementation and maintenance of a database safeguarding disclosed information subject to appropriate protocols.

Written comments on the ANPRM are due soon – by May 5, 2021.  The CTA is a critical development in AML regulation, and FinCEN can expect a considerable response to this important ANPRM, both from the businesses that are covered and the financial institutions that would have access to the beneficial ownership database.  Although the ANPRM is detailed and poses many questions, the ultimate, real-world implementation of the CTA will involve even more questions.
Continue Reading FinCEN Seeks Comments on Corporate Transparency Act Implementation

I am pleased to have been a guest on FTI‘s Fraud Eats Strategy podcast series, hosted by Scott Moritz.  In an episode entitled How Transparent is the Corporate Transparency Act, we explore the cornerstone of the newly-passed Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

The CTA requires covered legal

U.N. Report Focus on Improving Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance

On March 2, 2020 the United Nations released a Report on Financial Integrity For Sustainable Development (the “Report”). Although the Report is lengthy and wide-ranging, we will focus here on the portions of the Report which target the humanitarian toll of Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) from money laundering, tax abuse, cross-border corruption, and transnational financial crime – all of which can drain resources from sustainable development, worsen inequality, fuel instability, undermine governance, and damage public trust.   We also will focus on the portions of the Report which make recommendations designed to expand anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance.

First, the Report makes evidence-based recommendations focused on accountability, designed to close international enforcement and compliance gaps. Those recommendations include: (i) all countries enacting legislation providing for the widest range of legal tools to pursue cross-border financial crime; (ii) the international community developing an agreed-upon international standard for settlement of cross-border corruption cases, and (iii) businesses holding accountable all executives, staff, and board members who foster or tolerate IFFs in the name of the business.

Second, the Report makes other recommendations on several AML-related issues on which we have blogged: (i) each country creating a central registry of beneficial ownership information for legal entities; (ii) creating global standards for professionals, including lawyers, accountants, bankers and real estate agents; (iii) improving protections for human rights defenders, anti-corruption advocates, investigative journalists and whistleblowers; and (iv) promoting the exchange of information internationally among law enforcement officers and other authorities.

The Report clearly envisions that corporations can and should play a pivotal role in contributing resources in the fight against corruption, money laundering and cross-border financial crime. To start, Boards and management, particularly those of financial and professional service institutions, must engage in oversight to ensure that compensation, benefits, and employment itself are contingent upon financial integrity. Investors also should embrace financial integrity for sustainable development and be clear with the companies in which they invest that they expect effective anti-corruption policies and regulatory compliance. Integrity will be cultivated when organizational leadership hold board members, executives, and staff accountable if they foster or tolerate IFFs in the name of the business. Moreover, the Report observes that governments can foster financial integrity by imposing liability for failing to prevent bribery or corruption.
Continue Reading United Nations Targets Corruption and Illicit Cross-Border Finance

As we have blogged, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”) amended the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to expand greatly the options for whistleblowers alleging anti-money laundering (“AML”) violations and potentially create a wave of litigation and government actions, similar to what has occurred in the wake of the creation of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program.

We thought it would be valuable to learn how counsel for potential whistleblowers regard the AMLA and its implications.  We therefore are very pleased to welcome to Money Laundering Watch guest bloggers Mary Inman and Carolina Gonzalez of the law firm Constantine Cannon.

Ms. Inman is a partner in the London and San Francisco offices of Constantine Cannon. After 20+ years representing whistleblowers in the U.S., she moved to London in July 2017 to launch the firm’s international whistleblower practice, and she now splits her time between the London and San Francisco offices. She specializes in representing whistleblowers from the U.S., U.K., Europe and worldwide under the American whistleblower programs, including the federal and various state False Claims Acts and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and new Treasury Department BSA whistleblower programs. Ms. Inman’s efforts to export the American whistleblower programs to the U.K., including her efforts on behalf of a successful British whistleblower, were featured in a recent New York Times article “Law Firm Sees Britain as Hunting Ground for U.S. Whistleblower Cases.” Her successful representation of three whistleblowers exposing fraud in the Medicare Advantage program was featured in the February 4, 2019 issue of the New Yorker magazine in an article entitled “The Personal Toll of Whistle-Blowing.” Ms. Inman represents renowned whistleblower Tyler Shultz who exposed the now infamous Silicon Valley blood testing start-up Theranos, and regularly speaks on lessons to be learned from this scandal.

Ms. Gonzalez is a senior associate in Constantine Cannon’s London office and a member of the firm’s International Whistleblower practice.  She represents international whistleblowers under various U.S. and non-U.S. whistleblower reward programs.  Her practice focuses on financial services fraud, foreign corruption,  and money laundering. Carolina is heavily involved in developing various practice initiatives in emerging markets like Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.

This blog post again takes the form of a Q & A session, in which Ms. Inman and Ms. Gonzalez respond to questions posed by Money Laundering Watch about the BSA’s new whistleblower provision. We hope you enjoy this discussion regarding this important new development, and how it is regarded by potential whistleblowers and their counsel. – Peter Hardy and Meredith Dante
Continue Reading The New BSA Whistleblower Provision – From the Whistleblowers’ Perspective.  A Guest Blog.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued on February 24, 2021 “an [A]dvisory to alert financial institutions to fraud and other financial crimes related to Economic Impact Payments (EIPs), authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021.” The Advisory describes EIP

Revisions to BSA Will Inform Regulatory Examinations for Years to Come

Third Post in an Extended Series on Legislative Changes to BSA/AML Regulatory Regime

As we have blogged, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”), contains major changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), coupled with other changes relating to money laundering, anti-money laundering (“AML”), counter-terrorism financing (“CTF”) and protecting the U.S. financial system against illicit foreign actors.  In this post, we focus on some fundamental changes set forth in the AMLA’s very first provision, entitled “Establishment of national exam and supervision priorities.”

This new provision sets forth broad language affecting basic principles underlying the BSA and AML/CTF compliance. Specifically, it revises and expands the stated purpose of the BSA; enumerates specific factors for regulators to consider when examining financial institutions’ AML program compliance; requires the Secretary of the Treasury to establish public priorities for AML/CTF policy; and expands the duties and powers (and responsibilities) of the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).  We discuss each of these changes in turn.

As always, future regulations will determine how these abstract statements of principle will be applied in practice.  Ultimately, however, these AMLA amendments acknowledge the reality that AML/CTF compliance has become much more complex and nuanced since the early days of the BSA, and is a critical component of the soundness of the global financial system.
Continue Reading First Principles: AMLA Expands Stated Purpose of BSA and Exam Priorities

The AMLA Creates a Significant New Source of Risk for Financial Institutions

Second Blog Post in an Extended Series on Legislative Changes to the BSA/AML Regulatory Regime

As we have blogged, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (the “Act”) (part of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), passed on January 2, 2021), represents a historic overhaul of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).  One of the most important changes – and certainly one that has attracted great attention by the media and commentators – is Section 6314 of the NDAA, entitled “Updating whistleblower incentives and protections.” The Act’s expanded whistleblower provision is modeled after the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower provisions, and seeks to follow in Dodd-Frank’s footsteps.  But, there are some key differences between the Act and Dodd-Frank.  The Act also creates a more limited whistleblower program specifically pertaining to foreign corruption.

Aside from expanding the potential monetary rewards, the most significant aspect of the Act is that it explicitly invites internal compliance officers of financial institutions to use the information obtained through their compliance functions in order to pursue a whistleblower reward. This provision highlights the tension between individuals and institutions, and increases the pressure on financial institutions to comply with the law, take whistleblowers seriously, and be ready to deal with employees who purport to be whistleblowers but may be pursuing their own agenda. It also is a prudent time for financial institutions to review their internal complaint procedures and assess whether any changes are warranted given this new development.
Continue Reading AMLA Adds Robust New Whistleblower Provisions for Anti-Money Laundering Violations

Covered Companies Must Report Beneficial Ownership to National Database Upon Incorporation

First Blog Post in an Extended Series on Legislative Changes to BSA/AML Regulatory Regime

Change is upon us.  The U.S. House and Senate have passed – over a Presidential veto – the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), a massive annual defense spending bill.  As we have blogged, this bill, now law, contains historic changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), coupled with other changes relating to money laundering, anti-money laundering (“AML”), counter-terrorism financing (“CTF”) and protecting the U.S. financial system against illicit foreign actors. This sweeping legislation will affect financial institutions, their clients, and law enforcement and regulators for many years.  This will be the first post of many on these important legislative changes, which should produce related regulatory pronouncements throughout 2021.

Today, we will focus on the enactment that has received the most attention:  the NDAA’s adoption of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its requirements for covered legal entities to report their beneficial owners at the time of their creation to a database accessible by U.S. and foreign law enforcement and regulators, and to U.S. financial institutions seeking to comply with their own AML compliance obligations.  The issue of beneficial ownership and the misuse of shell corporations has been at the heart of global AML regulation and enforcement for many years.  This legislation will be held out as a partial but important response to the continuing critiques by the international community of the United States as a haven for money laundering and tax evasion, often due to the perception that U.S. and state laws on beneficial ownership reporting are lax.

Beyond “just” the CTA, the breadth of the BSA/AML legislation is substantial. We have discussed BSA/AML reform for years, and many of the reforms (acknowledging that the word “reform” often involves a value judgment, and whether a particular change represents “reform” is typically in the eye of the beholder) that have been repeatedly bandied about by Congress, industry, think tanks and law enforcement are incorporated into this legislation, or at least referenced as topics for further study and follow-up.  We therefore will be blogging repeatedly on the many and various components of this legislation, which implicates a broad array of key issues: BSA/AML examination priorities; attempting to modernize the BSA regulatory regime, including by improving feedback by the government on the usefulness of SAR reporting; potential “no action” letters by FinCEN; requiring process-related studies tied to the effectiveness and costs of certain BSA requirements, including current SAR and CTR reporting; increased penalties under the BSA for repeat offenders; greater information sharing among industry and the government; enhancing the ability of the government to investigate the use of correspondent bank accounts; cyber security issues; focusing on trade-based money laundering; adding a whistleblower provision to the BSA; and including dealers in antiquities to the definition of “financial institutions” covered by the BSA.
Continue Reading U.S. Passes Historic BSA/AML Legislative Change

Farewell to 2020.  Although it was an extremely difficult year, let’s still look back — because 2020 was yet another busy year in the world of money laundering and BSA/AML compliance.

We are highlighting 12 of our most-read blog posts from 2020, which address many of the key issues we’ve examined during the past year