I am very pleased to be part of two upcoming panels focused on key current risks relating to money laundering and anti-money laundering (“AML”), joined by wonderful and distinguished speakers. I hope that you can join – the discussions should be lively, informative and useful to legal and compliance professionals.
On October 21, 2021, a grand jury indictment was unsealed in the Southern District of Florida charging two Venezuelan and three Colombian citizens with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and four counts of money laundering. The indictment revealed an alleged bribery scheme involving a former Venezuelan state governor and Venezuelan government authorities that provide food and medicine to citizens in need. A portion of the $1.6 billion in contracts secured by alleged bribes was laundered into or through the United States through a web of accounts and businesses. This indictment serves as yet another example of the United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) use of money laundering charges to combat corruption in Venezuela (as we have blogged about repeatedly: here, here, here, here, here and here). It also represents another example of DOJ using the money laundering statutes to charge foreign government officials at the highest levels when the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cannot apply.
Continue Reading (More) Money Laundering Charges Announced for Alleged $1.6 Billion Venezuelan Corruption Scheme
Agenda Highlights Intersection of National Security, Corruption and Anti-Money LaunderingOn June 3, 2021, President Biden unveiled a National Security Study Memorandum entitled Memorandum on Establishing the Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States National Security Interest (the “Memo”). It reveals—as the title might suggest—that the Biden administration views “countering corruption as a core United States national security interest.” Corruption “corrodes public trust” in foreign nations, and—because of its cross-border nature—threatens “United States national security . . . and democracy itself.” This threat to democracy is created by, for example, “[a]nonymous shell companies, opaque financial systems, and professional service providers [that] enable the movement and laundering of illicit wealth, including in the United States.” Under the rubric of curbing illicit finance and promoting transparency, the Memo amplifies the importance of the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”).
To combat these risks, the Biden administration will use a whole-of-government approach. The Memo calls for an interagency review to tap the expertise of a wide array of agencies and executive departments, including the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, State, Commerce, and Energy. Within 200 days, an interagency review must be completed and a report and recommendations (the “Report”) must be submitted to the President. The Report will serve as the basis for the Biden administration’s strategy in its fight against corruption, both at home and abroad.
The Report has significant implications for many stakeholders: domestic and foreign financial institutions, U.S. corporations transacting business abroad, and foreign businesses and individuals operating or seeking to operate in the U.S. – as well as their professional advisors.
The Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition (the “FACT Coalition”) has already heaped praise on the Memo, stating it represents “real progress in combating this global scourge” of corruption. And the Memo represents just one part of a broader federal focus on corruption. The Memo comes about a month and a half after President Biden’s Executive Order targeting Russia’s use of “transnational corruption to influence foreign governments.” It also comes just a day after the announcement of a bipartisan Congressional caucus, the Congressional Caucus against Foreign Corruption and Kleptocracy (the “Caucus”). The Caucus will focus exclusively on foreign corruption, what Sen. Ben Cardin calls a “national security priority of the highest order.” The Caucus will provide a means of educating members of Congress and coordinating efforts across committees. Additionally, the Memo’s release preceded by just a few days Vice President Harris’ visit to Latin America. According to a senior administration official, a major focus of Vice President Harris’ trip will be conversations on anti-corruption measures.
Continue Reading President Biden Unveils Broad Vision to Crack Down on Foreign and Domestic Corruption
Indictment Alleges International Scheme Involving Bribes Touching NY Correspondent Bank AccountsThe U.S. Department of Justice announced last week that U.K. law enforcement officials arrested, at its request, an Austrian national, Peter Weinzierl, for his alleged participation in a wide-ranging money laundering scheme involving Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht S.A. Odebrecht previously pleaded guilty in December
Art & Antiquities; Beneficial Owners; Foreign Corruption — and MoreWe are really pleased to be moderating, once again, the Practising Law Institute’s 2021 Anti-Money Laundering Conference on May 11, 2021, starting at 9 a.m. This year’s conference again will be entirely virtual — but it will be as informative, interesting and timely as
On February 24, the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division Fraud Section released its 2020 Year In Review (“the Report”) touting its white-collar enforcement successes. Among them: four cases in which the DOJ wielded the United States’ money laundering statutes to pursue alleged overseas bribery recipients who are beyond the reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). This is a pattern we have covered previously (here, here, here, here, here, here and here). While the FCPA imposes liability on American citizens and entities that bribe foreign officials, it does not impose liability on the foreign officials receiving the bribe. Enter 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. As illustrated in the Report’s cases, 2020 marked a continuation of the DOJ’s willingness to use the money laundering statutes to pursue corrupt foreign activity that uses U.S. financial institutions, however tangentially.
Continue Reading DOJ Fraud Section 2020 Year in Review: Money Laundering Statute Remains an Overseas Enforcement Tool
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
The District of Connecticut recently vacated a defendant’s convictions at trial for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) — but declined to similarly vacate his related money laundering convictions. This case provides another example of how the money laundering statutes can be a particularly powerful and flexible tool for federal prosecutors, and how they can yield convictions even if the underlying offenses do not (and perhaps are not even charged).
The case involves Lawrence Hoskins, a British citizen who had been employed by Alstom UK Limited but worked primarily for a French subsidiary of Alstom, the parent company. Hoskins allegedly participated in a corruption scheme involving a project in Indonesia. The bidding process for the project also involved Alstom Power Inc. (“API”), another subsidiary of Alstom that is based in Windsor, Connecticut. According to the government, Alstom hired two consultants, Sharafi and Aulia, who bribed Indonesian officials to secure the contract for the project.
Much ink has been spilled by the media and legal commentators regarding the district court’s decision (which the government is appealing) to vacate the defendant’s FCPA convictions, on the grounds that he did not qualify as an “agent” of API for the purposes of the FCPA statute. We will not focus on that issue here. Rather, we of course will focus on the fact that the defendant’s convictions for money laundering, and conspiring to launder money, nonetheless survived. Importantly for the money laundering charges, the district court did not find that there in fact was no underlying corruption scheme. Rather, the court found that the defendant could not be convicted under the FCPA for allegedly participating in this scheme. Thus, there was still a “specified unlawful activity,” or SUA, which produced “proceeds” to generate money laundering transactions.
The case also reminds us that, as we have blogged, it is relatively easy for the U.S. government to prosecute foreign individuals for conduct occurring almost entirely overseas, because the nexus between the offense conduct and the U.S. does not need to be robust for U.S. jurisdiction to exist.
Continue Reading High-Profile FCPA Prosecution Reflects: Government Can Lose on Lead Corruption Charges But Still Win on Related Money Laundering Charges
Last week, the Justice Department announced a massive settlement in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) case, a matter implicating numerous money laundering and FCPA concerns and one about which we previously blogged here.
The DOJ announced a blanket settlement of all pending civil forfeiture cases against assets acquired by fugitive Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho (“Jho Low”) and various members of his family. The assets, consisting of both cash and real property, are currently located in the United States, United Kingdom, and Switzerland, and exceed $700 million. When combined with prior dispositions, this means the United States government has now recovered over $1 billion associated with the 1MDB scheme. The current settlement constitutes not only the largest recovery by the Department’s recently formed “Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative,” but the largest DOJ civil forfeiture on record.
The assets subject to the agreement represent an eye-catching list of high-end baubles, including a jet aircraft; luxurious properties in New York, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and London; stock; and rights to music royalties. The agreement further notes that, although not specifically part of the settlement because they already have been resolved, other related forfeiture cases – including the forfeiture of a gigantic yacht – have been “considered” as part of this global resolution.
Continue Reading DOJ Announces Historic Civil Forfeiture Settlement in 1MDB Case
Last week, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted two former Venezuelan officials, charging them with seven counts of money laundering and one count of money-laundering conspiracy. The charges relate to bribes and kickbacks provided to the officials who headed the country’s energy department and state-owned electricity company, Corporacion Electrica Nacional, S.A. (“Corpoelec”). The former officials allegedly received cash payments and received wire transfers, including from a bank in the Southern District of Florida.
As we have blogged about here, here, here, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has been pursuing Venezuelan nationals through high-dollar, high profile money laundering and foreign bribery charges. We also have previously discussed how the DOJ has been utlizing the money laundering statutes as a way to accomplish what the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) cannot accomplish directly – the bringing of charges against a foreign official.
Continue Reading Two Former Venezuelan Officials and Energy Executives Indicted as DOJ Continues to Use Money Laundering Charges to Combat Foreign Corruption