Much has occurred in the last two months regarding the relationship between financial institutions and Marijuana-Related Businesses, or MRBs. In this post, we discuss three major developments, all of which share a complex connection. First, the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”) recently pursued its first enforcement action against a credit union for Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) compliance failures when servicing MRBs. Second, two cannabis industry executives were convicted of bank fraud for allegedly tricking banks and other financial institutions into unwittingly extending financial services to their MRB. Third, and despite this enforcement drumbeat regarding MRBs, Congress has introduced again, with bi-partisan support, the SAFE Banking Act, which seeks to normalize the banking of cannabis by prohibiting federal bank regulators from taking certain actions against financial institutions servicing MRBs.
Continue Reading Banking and Cannabis Enforcement Round Up: NCUA Imposes First Penalty Relating to Cannabis Banking Services; Cannabis Industry Execs Convicted of Defrauding Banks into Providing Financial Services; Congress Re-Introduces the SAFE Banking Act
The Corporate Transparency Act: A Podcast
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
Congress Tasks GAO to Study the Intersection of Money Laundering and Humanitarian Issues: Human Trafficking and De-Risking
Fifth 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”) makes major changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and the U.S. approach to money laundering, anti-money laundering (“AML”), counter-terrorism financing (“CTF”) and protecting the U.S. financial system against illicit foreign actors. For example, the AMLA requires covered businesses to report beneficial ownership information to a central federal database; broadens the stated purpose of the BSA; expands the options and protections for whistleblowers alleging AML violations; and expands the U.S. government’s authority to subpoena information from foreign financial institutions with U.S. correspondent bank account relationships.
In addition to these changes, Congress also has used the AMLA as a tool to gather information on complex issues involving money laundering risks and BSA/AML compliance by requiring many studies and reports. In this post, we focus on two important issues for which Congress has required reports from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”): human trafficking and de-risking.
The willingness to address these problems through the AMLA shows that Congress is aware of the nexus between money laundering and human rights violations—and more importantly, appears ready to leverage the information gathered by the GAO in order to potentially address that nexus through future legislation. Congress is not alone in its concern. For example, the United Nations issued a report earlier this month on how transnational financial crime can impair sustainable development across the globe, worsen inequality, and fuel instability.
Continue Reading Congress Tasks GAO to Study the Intersection of Money Laundering and Humanitarian Issues: Human Trafficking and De-Risking
The New BSA Whistleblower Provision – From the Whistleblowers’ Perspective. A Guest Blog.
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.
AMLA Expands DOJ Grand Jury Subpoena Power Over Correspondent Bank Accounts and Foreign Banks
Fourth 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 explore the AMLA’s significant expansion of the U.S. government’s authority to subpoena information from foreign financial institutions that maintain correspondent banking relationships with U.S. banks.
Continue Reading AMLA Expands DOJ Grand Jury Subpoena Power Over Correspondent Bank Accounts and Foreign Banks
OSHA to Investigate Retaliation Complaints Under Money Laundering and Criminal Antitrust Laws
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) now will investigate workers’ complaints of retaliation for reporting alleged money laundering and antitrust-related violations under new whistleblower statutes. On February 19, 2021, the Department of Labor announced that OSHA would oversee whistleblower claims alleging retaliation under two laws – the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”) and
First Principles: AMLA Expands Stated Purpose of BSA and Exam Priorities
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
AMLA Adds Robust New Whistleblower Provisions for Anti-Money Laundering Violations
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
U.S. Passes Historic BSA/AML Legislative Change
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
Massive BSA/AML Reform Legislation Released by U.S. House and Senate Committees for Passage — But Still Subject to Potential Presidential Veto
On December 3, the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees reached an agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), an annual defense spending bill. Within this huge bill (well over 4,500 pages) are widespread changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), coupled with other related changes dealing with money laundering, anti-money laundering (“AML”),