Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued its Year in Review for FY 2023 (“YIR”).  It consists of five pages of infographics.  According to FinCEN’s press release:

The Year in Review is intended to help stakeholders gain insight into the collection and use of Bank Secrecy Act [(“BSA”)] data, including FinCEN’s efforts to support law enforcement and national security agencies. The Year in Review includes statistics from fiscal year 2023 on BSA reporting and how it is queried and used by law enforcement agencies. The Year in Review also includes information on how FinCEN uses and analyzes BSA reporting to fulfill its mission, including to support alerts, trend analyses, and regulatory actions. The publication of the Year in Review is in furtherance of FinCEN’s commitment to provide information and statistics on the usefulness of BSA reporting, consistent with Section 6201 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020.

According to the YIR, there are approximately 294,000 financial institutions and other e-filers registered to file BSA reports with FinCEN.  Collectively, they filed during FY 2023 a total of 4.6 million Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) and 20.8 million Currency Transaction Reports (“CTRs”), as well as 1.6 million Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBARs”), 421,500 Forms 8300 regarding cash payments over $10,000 received in a trade or business, and 143,200 Reports of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (“CMIRs”) for certain cross-border transactions exceeding $10,000.

As we will discuss, a massive amount of SARs and CTRs are filed every year.  Apparently – and the YIR necessarily represents only a snapshot lacking full context, so extrapolation is dangerous – only a very small portion of those filings ever become relevant to actual federal criminal investigations.  Further, the YIR suggests that information sharing under Section 314 of the Patriot Act between the government and financial institutions remains an under-utilized tool.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Releases Year-in-Review for FY 2023: SARs, CTRs and Information Sharing

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

Strategy Touts Regulations on Beneficial Ownership, Real Estate and Investment Advisers, but Bemoans Lack of Supervisory Resources for Non-Bank Financial Institutions

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued its 2024 National Strategy for Combatting Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (“Strategy”).  It is a 55-page document which, according to the government’s press release, “addresses the key risks from the 2024 National Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Proliferation Financing Risk Assessments. . . and details how the United States will build on recent historic efforts to modernize the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime, enhance operational effectiveness in combating illicit actors, and embrace technological innovation to mitigate risks.”

The Strategy discusses an enormous list of topics.  Given the breadth of its scope, the Strategy generally makes only very high-level comments regarding any particular topic.  This post accordingly is extremely high level as well, and offers only a few select comments. 

Continue Reading  Treasury Issues Broad National Strategy for Combatting Illicit Financing

Enforcement Trends, Gaming, Crypto — and More

I am very pleased to co-chair again the Practicing Law Institute’s 2024 Anti-Money Laundering Conference on May 23, 2024, starting at 9 a.m. in New York City (the event also will be virtual). 

I am also really fortunate to be working with my fabulous co-chair Elizabeth (Liz) Boison

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) recently issued a Financial Trend Analysis (“Analysis”) focusing on patterns and trends identified in Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) data linked to Elder Financial Exploitation (“EFE”) involving scams or theft perpetrated against older adults.

The Analysis is a follow up to FinCEN’s June 2022 EFE Advisory (“2022 Advisory”). The Analysis reviews BSA reports filed between June 15, 2022 and June 15, 2023 that either used the key term referenced in the 2022 Advisory (“EFE FIN-2022-A002”) or checked “Elder Financial Exploitation” as a suspicious activity type.  In its 2022 Advisory, FinCEN warned financial institutions (“FIs”) about the rising trend of EFE, which FinCEN defines as “the illegal or improper use of an older adult’s funds, property, or assets, and is often perpetrated either through theft or scams.” The 2022 Advisory identified 12 “behavioral” and 12 “financial” red flags to help FIs detect, prevent, and report suspicious activity connected to EFE. Additionally, FinCEN recommended EFE victims file incident reports to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) and the Federal Trade Commission. Consistent with a risk-based approach to BSA compliance, FinCEN encouraged FIs to perform additional due diligence where appropriate.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Analysis of Increasing Elder Financial Exploitation

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

We previously blogged on the lawsuit filed by the National Small Business Association (“NSBA”) and one of its individual members, which sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). Most recently, we analyzed the March 1 decision in that case by the Northern District of Alabama court, finding the CTA to be unconstitutional and enjoining the United States government from enforcing it against the plaintiffs.

The government sought an appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, and last Monday the Treasury Department filed its appellate brief. Before the District Court, the government argued that Congress had authority to enact the CTA under three distinct enumerated powers: (1) oversight of foreign affairs and national security; (2) its Commerce Clause-derived regulatory authority; and (3) its power to tax. The government’s brief on appeal focuses primarily on regulation of commercial activity, and its value as a component of the federal focus on combatting financial crime.

Continue Reading  Treasury Asks the Eleventh Circuit to Uphold the CTA and Congressional Authority

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued a Notice on the Use of Counterfeit U.S. Passport Cards to Perpetrate Identity Theft and Fraud Schemes at Financial Institutions (“Notice”), asking financial institutions (“FIs”) to be vigilant in identifying suspicious activity relating to the use of counterfeit U.S. passport cards.  According to the Notice, the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (“DSS”) has determined that there is a growing use of such counterfeit cards to gain access to victim accounts at FIs.  “This fraud occurs in person at [FIs] and involves an individual impersonating a victim by using a counterfeit U.S. passport card that contains the victim’s actual information.”

As its title plainly states, the Notice pertains to passport cards, rather than passport books.  Passport cards have more limited uses and can be used only for land, sea and domestic air travel into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda.  The following graphic from the Department of State illustrates the difference. 

The Notice observes that FIs are less likely to detect fraud involving passport cards because they are a less familiar form of U.S. government-issued identification.  Victims’ personal identifiable information (“PII”) is typically acquired through the darknet or the U.S. mail (see our blog post on the surge in mail-theft check fraud here).  After a fake card is created, the illicit actor or complicit money mule will visit a branch of the victim’s FI – often by trying to avoid any branches that the victim actually may visit, so as to reduce the chances of detection.

Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Notice on Counterfeit Passport Card Fraud

We are very pleased to be presenting on both Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) compliance and the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), in partnership with the Practicing Law Institute

First, on April 8 at 1 p.m., Siana Danch will discuss issues involving the CTA during a live one-hour briefing with Sara C. Lenet of Hogan

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