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
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
On October 23rd, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a supplementary alert regarding countering financing of the U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization Hizballah (the “Alert”). In May 2024, FinCEN published an initial alert that focused on the countering of financing Iran-backed terrorist organizations, including Hizaballah. This Alert focuses solely on Hizballah and indicates that as part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) campaign against Hizballah for the past two decades, financial institutions (“FIs”) must remain vigilant in identifying suspicious activity of the terrorist organization.
According to the Alert, is it estimated that Iran has provided $700 million per year in support of Hizballah. Hizballah is known to generate revenue through various illicit activities including oil smuggling, money laundering, black market money exchange, counterfeiting, and illegal weapons procurement. Funds are laundered through businesses in West Africa, Europe, and South America.
In an accompanying press release, FinCEN Director Gacki noted that the Alert was released in part due to Hizaballah’s recent attacks against Israel. In addition, the Alert is consistent with FinCEN’s National Priorities, which include domestic and foreign terrorism.
Continue Reading FinCEN Issues Alert on Countering Financing of Hizballah and Terrorist Activities
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.
Following up on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”), which we discussed back in March, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released on August 28th a final rule extending Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements to certain investment advisers (Final Rule).
The Final Rule adds “investment adviser” to the definition of “financial institution” at 31 C.F.R. 1010.100(t). The Final Rule applies to registered investment advisers (RIAs), and investment advisers (IAs) that report information to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) as exempt reporting advisers (ERAs), subject to certain exceptions. IAs generally must register with the SEC if they have over $110 million in assets under management (AUM). ERAs are investment advisers that (1) advise only private funds and have less than $150 million in AUM in the United States or (2) advise only venture capital funds.
The Final Rule requires certain IAs to: (1) develop and maintain an AML/CFT compliance program; (2) file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs); (3) comply with the Recordkeeping and Travel Rules; (4) respond to Section 314(a) requests; and (5) implement special due diligence measures for correspondent and private banking accounts.
FinCEN released a Fact Sheet in conjunction with the Final Rule, which becomes effective January 1, 2026.
Continue Reading FinCEN Finalizes Rule Subjecting Investment Advisers to AML/CFT Regulations
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
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
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
The federal banking agencies, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively the “Agencies”), issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Agencies’ NPRM”) to modernize financial institutions’ anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing (“AML/CFT”) programs. The Agencies’ NPRM is consistent with FinCEN’s recent AML/CFT modernization proposal (“FinCEN’s NPRM”), on which we blogged here.
The Agencies’ NPRM does not substantively depart from FinCEN’s NPRM and requires the same program requirements. Although the Anti-Money Laundering Act (“AML Act”) did not require the Agencies to amend their regulations, the Agencies’ goal is to maintain consistent program requirements. The NPRM states that financial institutions will not be subject to any additional burdens in complying with differing standards between FinCEN and the Agencies.