Administrative Procedures Act

Subscribe to Administrative Procedures Act via RSS

FinCEN Issues Corresponding But Limited Extensions of Reporting Deadlines

The Fates of the CTA and Corresponding CDD Rule Remain in a State of Flux

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

FinCEN has posted the following on its website in light of a recent litigation outcome regarding the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) in the Eastern District of Texas.  As we have blogged, and as the below notes, other federal district courts have reached opposite conclusions.  Also, the Eleventh Circuit still needs to rule on…

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.

Continue Reading  Another Chapter in the Alpine Securities Saga:  District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Complaint Challenging AML Enforcement Action Against Contractual Partner

Opinion Can Invite New Challenges to Long-Standing BSA/AML Regulations

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in which the Court determined when a Section 702 claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge a final agency action first accrues. In a 6-3 Opinion, the Supreme Court sided with Corner Post in holding that a right of action first accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the APA, that is when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.

This ruling could open the litigation floodgates for industry newcomers to challenge longstanding agency rules. These APA challenges will be further aided by the Supreme Court’s recent overruling of Chevron deference, giving the courts the power to interpret statutes without deferring to the agency’s interpretation.

This development is relevant to potential challenges to anti-money laundering (“AML”) regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) or other statutory schemes by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the federal functional regulators, the Securities Exchange Commission, and FINRA. Many BSA/AML regulations were promulgated many years ago. Historically, litigation challenges to BSA/AML regulations have been rare. Given the combined effect of recent rulings by the Supreme Court, that could change.

Continue Reading  Supreme Court Opens Door to More APA Challenges by Ruling that Right of Action Accrues When Regulation First Causes Injury

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) has issued a detailed and complicated Order in the case Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, denying a motion for preliminary injunction by Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. (“BSJI”), a Puerto Rican bank entity, against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the “FRBNY”) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”).

The case arose out of the FRBNY’s decision to close BSJI’s master account for alleged deficiencies in its anti-money laundering (“AML”) system, which thereby posed systemic risk. The Court held, amongst other rulings, that there is no statutory right to a so-called “master account” with a federal reserve bank.

After the Court filed its Order on October 27, BSJI filed its appeal on October 30, and requested an emergency stay pending appeal and an expedited appeal. On November 9, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit referred BSJI’s motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite to a three-judge motions panel and denied the request for a stay pending appeal.

As we have blogged, and generalizing greatly, having a master account allows financial institutions to operate in the normal course as a custodial bank in the U.S. Having a master account is therefore critical to any institution looking to operate in the U.S. financial system. Accordingly, the FRBNY’s decision, and the Court’s Order, in effect prevent BSJI from operating.

Although some of the background allegations are eye-catching, the Order makes broad legal pronouncements, many of which are not necessarily tied to the alleged facts. The Order therefore emphasizes the significant and unilateral powers of a federal reserve bank, and its discretion to provide or deny master accounts going forward. These powers apply to all financial institutions and require financial institutions to take a serious approach in meeting their AML obligations under the BSA as well as regulator remediation and recommendations regarding the same.  This matter also illustrates how a financial institution can resolve an enforcement action with the Department of Justice, only to find itself still facing an existential threat posed by a regulator for the same underlying activity. 

Continue Reading  SDNY Court Finds Broad Fed Powers Over Master Accounts in Puerto Rican Bank Case Involving AML Concerns

Complaint Illustrates Existential Fight Over OFAC’s Ability to Sanction Open-Source Code – and OFAC Responds (?) By Issuing FAQs on Tornado Cash Use

Last month, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctioned Tornado Cash, a virtual currency “mixer” operating on the Ethereum blockchain which allegedly has been used to launder the virtual currency equivalent of more than $7 billion since its creation in 2019, by adding it to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the “SDN List”). The initial response from certain elements of the crypto community was, not surprisingly, negative: for example, an 8/15 Coin Center whitepaper and an 8/23 letter from Congressman Tom Emmer to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen argued that OFAC lacked the legal authority.

In the intervening month, things have heated up considerably. Last week, six plaintiffs filed a complaint against OFAC and the Treasury Department, as well as Secretary Yellen and OFAC Director Andrea Gacki in their respective official capacities, in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief – specifically, that the court declare OFAC’s addition of Tornado Cash to the SDN List as unlawful, and permanently enjoin the enforcement of the designation and any sanctions stemming therefrom.  Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper due to Plaintiff Joseph Van Loon’s residence in Cedar Park, TX, within the Western District.  Plaintiffs’ decision to opt for the Waco Division, rather than the Austin Division, may be intentional, because the Waco Division has only one judge, who until recently has been the go-to choice for patent litigation plaintiffs.

The complaint has and will continue to draw considerable attention.  It lays out the framework for a fascinating question:  under existing law, can OFAC act directly against a piece of technology such as open-source code?  Or, must OFAC pursue enforcement, through a more difficult, piece meal and time-consuming process, only against specific individuals and specific legal entities? Presumably, both sides will invoke broad policy-related and equity-related arguments regarding “privacy,” “transparency,” and the need to fight crime.  However, the key issue may come down to a more traditional and rather dry legal issue of parsing the meaning of statutory language.

Continue Reading  Civil Complaint Challenges OFAC’s Tornado Cash Sanctions

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

The Pink Mosque in Shiraz, Iran

On October 25, 2019, FinCEN issued a final rule imposing the Fifth Special Measure against the Islamic Republic of Iran as a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern” (“Final Rule”) under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT ACT.  The Final Rule will prohibit the opening or maintaining of a correspondent bank account in the U.S. for, or on behalf of, an Iranian financial institution.  It also will prohibit the correspondent accounts of foreign financial institutions at covered U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions involving Iranian financial institutions.
Continue Reading  FinCEN Identifies Iran as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a press release today, entitled “New FinCEN Division Focuses on Identifying Primary Foreign Money Laundering Threats.”

The announcement states that this new Division will focus on topics about which we have blogged repeatedly:  Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act and threats posed to the financial system by…

Second Part in a Two-Part Series

The Tale of an AML BSA Exam Gone Wrong

As we have blogged, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the decision of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to issue a cease and desist order against California Pacific Bank (the “Bank”) for the Bank’s alleged failure to comply with Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) regulations or have a sufficient plan and program in place to do so.

In our first post, we described how the Ninth Circuit rejected the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the relevant regulation, and accorded broad deference to the FDIC in its interpretations of its own regulations, expressed in the form of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Manual (“FFIEC Manual”).  This post discusses the Court’s review of the Bank’s challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act to the FDIC’s factual findings of AML program failings.

The California Pacific opinion provides a significant piece of guidance for banks questioning the adequacy of its BSA compliance program: consult and abide the FFIEC Manual.  Furthermore, it demonstrates that no shortcuts are permitted when it comes to establishing and maintaining a BSA compliance program.  The BSA and the FDIC’s regulations contain firm guidelines and the FFIEC Manual puts banks of all sizes on notice of what compliance is expected of them.  The independence of both the AML compliance officer and of testing; adequate risk assessments of customer accounts; and the correction of prior regulator findings of AML deficiencies are key.
Continue Reading  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Outlines BSA Compliance Obligations and How One Small Bank Failed to Meet Them