Attorney Liability

Subscribe to Attorney Liability

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has published a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the “Guide”) for beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), as well as updated FAQs regarding CTA compliance.

The Guide contains six chapters and an appendix. It is 56 pages long. It appears to be useful to its apparent target audience, which is small businesses confronting relatively simple issues under the CTA. The Guide is relatively clear, simply-worded and contains helpful infographics. However, what neither the Guide nor the updated FAQs does is provide any real insights into how to interpret the BOI reporting regulations. Rather, they reiterate the existing BOI regulatory requirements. Thus, anyone looking for insights into nuanced CTA issues will be disappointed.

The CTA takes effect on January 1, 2024. On that date, FinCEN needs to have implemented a working data base to accept millions of reports by newly-formed companies required to report BOI under the CTA, as well as reports by the even greater population of existing reporting companies, which must report their BOI by January 1, 2025. This is a logistically daunting task, because FinCEN estimates that over 30 million entities will need to register by the 2025 date. Perhaps one of the most interesting things about the Guidance is that it clearly asserts that the January 1, 2024 date is good, and that the CTA BOI database will be functioning by then.

That claim is debatable. FinCEN still needs to issue important and basic regulations implementing the CTA, including final rules regarding access to the data base, and proposed rules regarding how the existing Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) Rule applicable to banks and other financial institutions might be amended – and presumably, expanded – to align with the different and often broader requirements of the CTA. Further, FinCEN’s notice and request for comment regarding FinCEN’s proposed form to collect and report BOI to FinCEN was criticized roundly. Given the backlash, FinCEN now is revising the proposed reporting form.

Similarly, on June 7, 2023 four members of the U.S. House of Representatives (the Chairpersons of the House Committee on Financial Services; the House Committee on Small Business; the House Subcommittee on  National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions; and the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government) sent a letter directed to Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, and Himamauli Das, Former Acting Director of FinCEN, regarding the status of the implementation of the CTA. The letter, fairly or not, stresses the need for transparency by FinCEN, and implies that January 1, 2024 may not be a viable date.

The fact that FinCEN devoted its limited resources to producing a 56-page publication which repeats but does not explicate current regulatory requirements for BOI reporting is unusual, given FinCEN’s many other pressing demands – such as finishing the rest of the regulations under the CTA. However, it is possible that the Guide is a reaction to demands placed upon FinCEN by certain members of Congress, who are pushing for clarity for affected businesses.…

Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Small Entity Compliance Guide for Corporate Transparency Act

On August 30, 2023, the Federal Council of Switzerland announced proposed laws (the “Press Release”) to strengthen its anti-money laundering (“AML”) efforts in important ways.

The proposal includes an obligation for attorneys and other advisers to conduct due diligence; the creation of a centralized, non-public register of beneficial owners (“BO”); and new measures concerning sanctions violations, real estate transactions, and precious metal traders.  

The Federal Council has found that “[m]oney laundering and terrorist financing pose a serious threat to financial system integrity” and that criminals (whether in Switzerland or over the world) misuse legal entities to conceal assets and in furtherance of illicit activity.  As a “major financial centre,” The Federal Council realizes that Switzerland is exposed to these risks.  In the eyes of the world, the United States and Switzerland often have vied for the dubious title of the world’s top haven for tax evasion and money laundering.  And Switzerland has been feeling the pressure due to being one of the world’s top economies which still has not implemented regulations for BOs.

The Federal Council published the proposed laws in German (which we do not review in this blog), and issued in English an FAQ and an informative graphic.  The Federal Council is seeking input until November 29, 2023, and will act on the legislation in 2024.

The aim of the proposed laws is to “contribute significantly to protecting the financial centre from funds of criminal origin, and to strengthening Switzerland as a business location.”  Although the Swiss financial sector has more robust safeguards against money laundering and terrorist financing activities, the FAQ explains that “there are gaps in other, nonfinancial areas in this respect” and that “it is necessary to also include particularly risky activities in the non-financial sector in efforts to prevent and combat financial crime.” The Federal Council has found that the “high money laundering risks associated with legal entities and trusts” require legislation to strengthen the Swiss framework. According to the Press Release, prosecuting authorities would benefit from increased transparency to more quickly and accurate identifying the true owners of legal entities. …

Continue Reading  Switzerland Proposes Due Diligence for Attorneys and Broader Beneficial Owner Reporting Laws

On August 8, 2023, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly (216–102) to pass Revised Resolution 100 (the “Resolution”), which in turn revised ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 and its Comments (the “Rule”) to explicitly recognize a lawyer’s duty to assess the facts and circumstances of a representation at the time the lawyer is engaged and throughout the representation to ensure that the lawyer’s services are not used to “commit or further a crime or fraud.”

The Comments to the Rule clearly illustrate that the ABA is concerned with the use of a lawyer’s services to—wittingly or unwittingly—assist clients in laundering money.  The Resolution itself acknowledges this, stating “the impetus for these proposed amendments was lawyers’ unwitting involvement in or failure to pay appropriate attention to signs or warnings of danger . . . relating to a client’s use of a lawyer’s services to facilitate possible money laundering and terrorist financing activities.”  And the ABA’s press release echoes this concern, noting the Rule was revised “because of concern that lawyers’ services can be used for money laundering and other criminal and fraudulent activity.”…

Continue Reading  American Bar Association Revises Model Rule of Professional Conduct to Combat Money Laundering

As we have blogged repeatedly, there is a close nexus between money laundering and tax crimes.  The frequent connection between the two sets of offenses – and the potentially related methods of combatting them – is a topic that is receiving growing attention.  It is important for many reasons, including the increase in international cooperation and information sharing across countries and law enforcement agencies in regard to both sets of offenses.

We therefore are very pleased to welcome to Money Laundering Watch guest bloggers Emmanuel Mathias and Adrian Wardzynski, who have authored a well-received Working Paper, Leveraging Anti-Money Laundering Measures to Improve Tax Compliance and Help Mobilize Domestic Revenues as part of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) publication series (“Working Paper”).

As we will discuss, the Working Paper advocates leveraging anti-money laundering (“AML”) measures to enhance tax compliance, tackle tax crimes, and help mobilize domestic revenues.

Emmanuel Mathias heads the Governance and Anti-Corruption division in the IMF’s Legal Department, where he oversees the IMF’s work on anti-corruption and the rule of law. He also worked extensively on AML issues. Prior to joining the IMF in 2005, Emmanuel served as a researcher in economics, was trained as a customs special agent, and worked for the French Financial Intelligence Unit. Emmanuel holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Paris – Pantheon Sorbonne. He graduated from the Institute of political studies of Strasbourg, and was admitted to the French national school of administration.

Adrian Wardzynski works in the Financial Integrity division in the IMF’s Legal Department. In his role as a Counsel he focuses on financial integrity issues relating to money laundering, tax crimes, and corruption. Before joining the IMF in 2021, Adrian was a Tax Policy Advisor at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. He also worked on taxation of multinational enterprises and financial institutions in the private sector and Switzerland’s State Secretariat for International Finance. Adrian holds an LL.M. in Taxation from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences.

The IMF is a global organization which works to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for all of its 190 member countries. It does so by supporting economic policies that promote financial stability and monetary cooperation, which are essential to increase productivity, job creation, and economic well-being To fulfill these missions, IMF member countries work collaboratively with each other and with other international bodies.

This blog post again takes the form of a Q & A session, in which Mr. Mathias and Mr. Wardzynski, in their personal capacities, respond to questions posed by Money Laundering Watch about the Report. We hope you enjoy this discussion of this important topic. – Peter Hardy and Siana Danch.…

Continue Reading  Leveraging AML Measures to Combat Tax Crimes. A Guest Blog.

Opinion Offers Narrow View of “Safe Harbor” Provision for Defense Attorneys Accepting Tainted Funds from Clients

Second in Series of Two Blog Posts Pertaining to Attorneys Convicted of Money Laundering

On April 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Baltimore defense attorney Kenneth Ravenell (“Ravenell”) for money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).  Ravenell had proceeded to trial and had been acquitted of six charges, including conspiracy to distribute narcotics.  However, he was convicted on the single count of money laundering conspiracy, based on his alleged assistance to two drug dealer clients, and received a sentence of 57 months of imprisonment.

The Ravenell opinion (“Opinion”) involves a splintered set of findings across the three-judge panel.  It involves findings on important technical issues pertaining to the statute of limitations and the use of the conscious avoidance/willful blindness theory of prosecution, which is often critical in cases involving third-party professionals such as lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents.  But, more importantly, it involves a discussion of when defense attorneys may accept illegally-obtained proceeds from their clients as payment for legal representation, and if such funds ever may be provided through third parties.  As we will discuss, the Fourth Circuit interpreted very narrowly a “safe harbor” provision under 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f) for defense attorneys – and did so in a case in which the evidence, if accepted, made clear that the safe harbor did not apply.  Stated otherwise, bad facts may have resulted in inappropriately broad language applicable to other cases.

As we just blogged, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also announced on April 25 that Robert Wise (“Wise”), a New York attorney, had pled guilty to a single count of conspiring to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.  This case arose out of the indictment of Vladimir Voronchenko, who has been charged in connection with a scheme to make payments to maintain multiple properties in New York and Florida owned by his friend and associate, sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.  

These two cases are very different.  But they both illustrate how attorneys – either business attorneys, or criminal defense attorneys – can get caught up in the problems of their own clients, particularly given the ability of the government to pursue a theory of willful blindness.…

Continue Reading  Fourth Circuit Upholds Money Laundering Conspiracy Conviction of Baltimore Defense Attorney

First of Two Blog Posts in a Series Pertaining to Attorneys Convicted of Money Laundering

In February, we blogged on the indictment of Vladimir Voronchenko (“Voronchenko”) in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), who was charged in connection with a scheme to make payments to maintain multiple properties in New York and Florida owned by his friend and associate, sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg (“Vekselberg”).  The February indictment also contained allegations that Voronchenko had retained a then unnamed U.S.-based attorney to help carry out those alleged money laundering activities.

On April 25, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY announced that Robert Wise (“Wise”), a New York attorney, had pled guilty to a single count of conspiring to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.  The substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy was 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), which criminalizes the act of transferring monetary instruments or funds into or outside of the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.  Interestingly, the superseding information charges Wise with violating the general criminal conspiracy statute, Section 371 (which carries a statutory maximum sentence of “only” five years), rather than violating the specific money laundering conspiracy provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (which carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years).  It is unclear whether Wise is cooperating with investigators.

In our next post, we will discuss the Fourth Circuit’s affirmation of attorney Kenneth Ravenell’s conviction at trial for money laundering conspiracy, in violation of Section 1956(h).…

Continue Reading  New York Attorney Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Commit Money Laundering in Connection with Indicted Russian Oligarch

Alleged Evasion Through a Law Firm Account and High-End Real Estate

On February 7, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Vladimir Voronchenko (“Voronchenko”) with participating in a scheme to make payments in excess of $4 million dollars to maintain four properties located in the United States that were owned by Viktor Vekselberg (“Vekselberg”), a sanctioned Russian oligarch (whose own issues we have blogged on here). Additionally, the indictment also charges Voronchenko, a citizen of the Russian Federation and legal permanent resident of the United States, with contempt of court in connection with his flight from the United States following receipt of a grand jury subpoena on May 13, 2022, which required his personal appearance and testimony. He has not returned to the United States since.

As we discuss, the indictment implicates several issues on which we blog frequently, including evasion of Russia sanctions relating to the Ukraine; the potential exposure of lawyers to money laundering risks; and the potential exposure of real estate professionals to money laundering risks.…

Continue Reading  Russian Citizen Indicted for Making Payments on Behalf of Sanctioned Russian Oligarch

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.

As we have repeatedly blogged, concerns about perceived anti-money laundering (“AML”) risks in the real estate industry are rising globally.  Consistent with this concern, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) has updated its AML guidance for the real estate sector in a document entitled “Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: Real Estate Sector,” (“FATF Guidance” or “the Updated Guidance”).  The FATF Guidance urges a variety of players in the real estate industry to adopt a risk-based approach (“RBA”) to mitigate AML risks and sets forth some high-level recommendations.  The Updated Guidance notably coincides with FinCEN’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to impose reporting and perhaps other requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) for persons involved in real estate transactions to collect, report, and retain information, and the  recent extension of Geographic Targeting Orders for U.S. title insurance companies.

The FATF Guidance appears to be driven, at least in part, by FATF assessments showing that the real estate sector has high AML risks, which industry players often fail to appreciate and/or mitigate.  The Updated Guidance explains how various industry players can use an RBA to mitigate those risks.  It identifies sector-specific risks, sets forth strategies for assessing and managing those risks, and describes challenges the industry faces in doing so.  The FATF also offers specific guidance for “private sector players” and “supervisors” (e.g., countries and self-regulatory boards) for going forward.  The Updated Guidance includes tools, case studies, and examples of both private sector and supervisory practices to show real estate supervisors and practitioners how to implement FATF standards in an adequate, risk-based and effective manner.

The FATF is an inter-governmental policymaking body dedicated to creating AML standards and promoting effective measures to combat money laundering (“ML”) and terrorist financing (“TF”).  The FATF issued the Updated Guidance with input from the private sector, including from a public consultation with thirteen private-sector representatives (including from sector specific professional associations, the legal profession, FinTech providers, and non-profit organizations) in March and April 2022.  This consultation urged FinCEN, among other things, to provide greater clarity in the Updated Guidance regarding its applicability to the real estate sector and related professions (such as lawyers, notaries, and financial institutions) and extend FATF recommendations to broader real estate activities (such as property development and leasing).…

Continue Reading  FATF Updates Risk-Based Approach Guidance for the Real Estate Sector

Amendment Focuses on Professional “Gatekeepers” – Lawyers, Accountants, Payment Processors, and Those Providing Corporate Formation and Trust Services

On July 13, 2022, the House of Representatives (the “House”) adopted an amendment to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) offered by Maxine Waters (D. CA), inserting into the NDAA a version of the “Establishing New Authorities for Business Laundering and Enabling Risks to Security Act,” otherwise more commonly known as the ENABLERS Act. If ultimately passed into statute, even a scaled-back version of this amendment could significantly alter the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (“BSA/AML”) regulatory framework in the United States.  Of course, the sweeping AML Act of 2020 was passed because it also was tucked into the massive defense spending authorization bill for that year—so backers of BSA/AML expansion appear to be reverting to tactics which previously bore fruit.

Arguably, this amendment is even more sweeping than the AML Act. As we will discuss, it applies the BSA to persons providing corporate formation, trust, third-party payment, or similar legal or accounting services.  Although much digital ink will be spilled regarding the amendment’s application to lawyers—and we certainly emphasize here that potential sea change in AML regulation—the amendment’s application to third-party payment processors, depending upon how that term ultimately gets defined if the amendment becomes law, also could be a very significant development affecting many businesses and financial technology companies (“fintechs”).  Currently, and depending on the facts, the BSA often does not apply to payment processors, who often fit into an exemption under the BSA’s definition of a “money services business,” or MSBs, subject to AML requirements.  However, the amendment is “scaled back” from the original version of the ENABLERS Act, introduced last year, which had included investment advisors, art and antiquities dealers, and public relations firms.  Finally, the ambitious agenda of the amendment does not appear to acknowledge the current reality of actual government resources: the fact remains that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), which implements the BSA, has been struggling to implement the huge array of tasks and deadlines already foisted upon it by Congress through the AML Act and the recently-passed Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”)—and FinCEN has been stating repeatedly that it needs increased funding.…

Continue Reading  Closing the Gate:  House Adopts ENABLERS Act Amendment to 2023 NDAA