Customer Information Program

On May 13th, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would require SEC-registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers (ERAs) to establish a customer identification program (CIP). This joint NPRM is the second recent rulemaking effort aimed at investment advisers. In February, FinCEN issued a separate NPRM amending the definition in the Code of Federal Regulations of “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to include investment advisers, which would require implementation of an anti-money laundering/countering terrorist financing (AML/CFT) compliance program. In this earlier NPRM, FinCEN alluded to a future joint rulemaking regarding CIP requirements for investment advisers.

The NPRM highlights that CIPs are long-standing, foundational components of an AML program. The NPRM requires a CIP similar to existing CIP requirements for other financial institutions, as FinCEN and the SEC want to ensure “effectiveness and efficiency” for investment advisers that are affiliated with other financial institutions, including banks, broker-dealers, or open-end investment companies that are already subject to CIP requirements.  

Background

Investment advisers have not been previously subject to CIP requirements, unless they were also a registered broker-dealer, a bank, or an operating subsidiary of a bank, and therefore already covered separately by the BSA. In many cases, investment advisers already voluntarily comply with CIP requirements, or their functional equivalent.

This joint NPRM implements section 326 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”). Section 326 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations setting forth the minimum standards for “financial institutions” regarding the identity of their customers in connection with the opening of an account at a financial institution. More specifically, and as the NPRM notes, the BSA defines “financial institution” to include, in a catch-all provision, “any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage[.]”  That is the statutory authority upon which this NPRM and the earlier NPRM rest.  If FinCEN’s proposed amendment to the regulatory definition of “financial institution” is finalized and survives any legal challenges, investment advisers will be required to implement and maintain a CIP, as well as AML programs.

Continue Reading  FinCEN and SEC Propose Rulemaking Requiring CIP for Investment Advisers

In February 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) entered into consent orders (here and here) with two banks who partner with fintechs to offer “banking as a service” (BaaS) related to safety and soundness concerns relating to compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), compliance with applicable laws, and third-party oversight. 

BaaS refers to arrangements in which banks integrate their banking products and services into the services of non-bank third-party distributors and the distributors deliver the integrated banking services directly to the customer.  A common example of BaaS is banks’ delivery of lending services through fintech partners’ digital platforms.  BaaS has gained popularity in recent years as the bank partner can generally roll out banking services to customers at a much faster pace and for lower costs than traditional banking products and services.

These two consent orders do not arise in a vacuum.  In June 2023, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released final interagency guidance for their respective supervised banking organizations on managing risks associated with third-party relationships, including relationships with financial technology-focused entities such as bank/fintech sponsorship arrangements.  The guidance explained that supervisory reviews will evaluate risks and the effectiveness of risk management to determine whether activities are conducted in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  At that time, we noted that we expected increased regulatory attention to bank/fintech partnership programs like the BaaS relationships addressed here.  Although these FDIC consent orders did not specifically cite to the interagency guidance, the guidance presumably was used to support the third-party oversight criticisms in the supervisory examinations of the two banks.

Continue Reading  Recent FDIC Consent Orders Reflect Ongoing Scrutiny of Bank Relationships with Fintechs

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