Customer Due Diligence

Subscribe to Customer Due Diligence 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

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

Various industry groups have filed lawsuits in multiple federal districts challenging the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).  The first such suit, filed in the Northern District of Alabama, resulted in a ruling by the District Court that the CTA was unconstitutional because Congress lacked the authority to enact the CTA.  The government appealed this ruling, and the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on Friday, September 27.  As we discuss below, the tenor of the argument suggests, although hardly compels, the conclusion that the Eleventh Circuit will reverse the holding of the District Court.

Further, one week prior to the oral argument, on September 20, the District of Oregon rejected a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the CTA, finding in part that plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits in regards to a broad spectrum of constitutional claims.  Although the District of Oregon did not issue a dispositive ruling on the merits, given the particular procedural posture of the case, the tenor of the opinion strongly suggests that plaintiffs’ lawsuit faces an uphill battle, at best.

Given the importance of the CTA and the existence of several other similar lawsuits in other federal districts challenging the CTA, both of these developments have been watched closely.  FinCEN has estimated that over 30 million existing entities need to file reports regarding their beneficial owners (“BOs”) under the CTA by January 1, 2025.  FinCEN also has indicated that, to date, only a small percentage of covered entities have done so.  To the extent that entities may have been waiting to file their reports until a more clear picture of the CTA litigations materializes, they presumably should stop waiting.  Although it is possible that a circuit split could develop, and that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could address and resolve the constitutionality of the CTA, the CTA still remains in force—with the current exception of entities affected by the District of Alabama ruling—and presumably will remain in force past January 1, 2025.

Continue Reading  Corporate Transparency Act Litigation Update:  Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument, and District of Oregon Rejects Preliminary Injunction Enjoining CTA Enforcement

On August 27, 2024, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) announced a consent order involving a $35 million settlement with Nordea Bank Abp (“Nordea”) for alleged significant failures related to anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance. Nordea, headquartered in Helsinki, Finland, operates globally, including through a licensed branch in New York, which has its own AML and transaction monitoring requirements.

The enforcement action, which followed revelations from the Panama Papers leak, found that Nordea allegedly failed to conduct proper due diligence on high-risk correspondent banking relationships and maintained inadequate AML controls.  According to the NYDFS, the Panama Papers implicated Nordea in aiding clients in establishing offshore shell companies in order to facilitate illicit activities.

The consent order alleges that Nordea violated New York law by allowing compliance failures in its AML program and procedures to persist.  Meanwhile, Danish officials recently charged Nordea with repeatedly violating Denmark’s anti-money laundering act between 2012 and 2015, thereby exposing Nordea, potentially, to extremely significant fines.  As we will discuss, although the consent order implicates many different issues, the NYDFS enforcement action represents, in part, the latest chapter in the continued fall-out from the massive AML scandal involving Dankse Bank.  The consent order also highlights, once again, the particular risks posed by correspondent banking relationships, on which we repeatedly have blogged (for example, here, here, and here).

Continue Reading  NYDFS Imposes $35 Million Fine on Nordea Bank for Alleged AML Failures Following Panama Papers Revelations

Thereby Highlighting Need for Future Changes to Banks’ CDD Rule Systems

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.   

Continue Reading  Federal Banking Agencies Issue NPRM Consistent with FinCEN’s AML/CFT Modernization Proposal

On April 18, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) released updated FAQs related to the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) Rule. The last round of updates occurred in January 2024. As we previously have reported, the FAQs do not create any new requirements and are intended to clarify the regulation. In total, there are 16 new FAQs and 2 updated FAQs. We have included brief summaries below.

One of the main take-aways is that FinCEN does not expect to provide access to CTA BOI to financial institutions (“FIs”) until 2025.  In the interim, FinCEN will issue the long-awaited proposed regulations seeking to align the CTA with the Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) Rule already applicable to certain FIs, including banks, which requires FIs to obtain BOI from covered entity customers opening accounts.  This delay is likely very frustrating for FIs seeking to comply with the CTA and adjust their existing systems for complying with the CDD Rule.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Releases Updated BOI FAQs

On March 28, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in consultation with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, issued a request for information (RFI).

The RFI seeks information and comment regarding the…

Years in the making, on February 13, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to include “investment adviser” (“IA”) within the definition of “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). FinCEN has posted a fact sheet on the NPRM here.

The NPRM subjects broad categories of IAs to statutory and regulatory anti-money laundering/countering terrorist financing (“AML/CTF”) compliance obligations. FinCEN is accepting comments on the NPRM until April 15, 2024.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Seeks to Make Investment Advisers Subject to Bank Secrecy Act

On March 1, Judge Liles C. Burke of the Northern District of Alabama issued a Memorandum Opinion (“Opinion”) and Final Judgment, finding that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) is unconstitutional.  We blogged on this lawsuit when it was filed in November 2022.

The opening paragraph of the Opinion is worthy of repetition:

The late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges should have a rubber stamp that says STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. See Jennifer Senior, In Conversation: Antonin Scalia, New York Magazine, Oct. 4, 2013. The Constitution, in other words, does not allow judges to strike down a law merely because it is foolish, burdensome or offensive. Yet the inverse is also true—the wisdom of a policy is no guarantee of its constitutionality. Indeed, even in the pursuit of sensible and praiseworthy ends, Congress sometimes enacts smart laws that violate the Constitution. This case, which concerns the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act, illustrates that principle.

Having set the tone, the Opinion proceeds to reject the government’s three arguments that Congress had the authority to enact the CTA under the following enumerated and broad powers:

1.         Congress’ ability to oversee foreign affairs and national security;

2.         Congress’ ability to regulate under the Commerce Clause; and

3.         Congress’ taxing power.

As we will discuss, the Opinion reaches its conclusions by generally taking a broad view of States’ autonomy and a narrow view of the ability of Congress to regulate primarily “local” activity in the name of protecting national security.  It also finds that Congress cannot regulate the act of incorporation alone, and that the CTA presumably could pass constitutional muster if it applied only when a reporting entity actually begins to engage in commercial activity.  The immediate, nationwide effects of the Opinion are hard to predict at this time, other than to observe simply that the Opinion will have significant impact, and that confusion will ensue.

Continue Reading  Federal District Court Ruling:  The CTA is Unconstitutional