Panama Papers

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

By Kelly A. Lenahan-Pfahlert on September 4, 2024

Posted in Civil Penalty, Compliance Program, Correspondent Bank Accounts, Customer Due Diligence, New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), Panama Papers, Transaction Monitoring

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

Tax Audits, Investigations and Global Enforcement: A Podcast

By Peter D. Hardy, Christopher A. Jones & Siana Danch on March 6, 2024

Posted in Attorney Liability, Civil Penalty, Corporate Transparency Act, Criminal Enforcement, Extraterritorial Application of US Law, Information Sharing, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), International Tax Evasion, Panama Papers, Pandora Papers, Tax Fraud

With Guest Speaker IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent Jonathan Schnatz

We are very fortunate to have Special Agent Jonathan Schnatz as our guest speaker in this podcast on international efforts to investigate tax evasion and money laundering, and how they relate to criminal investigations and civil audits of U.S. businesses and individuals.

Special Agent Schnatz…

American Bar Association Revises Model Rule of Professional Conduct to Combat Money Laundering

By Andrew N. D'Aversa on August 17, 2023

Posted in Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Attorney Client Privilege, Attorney Liability, Customer Due Diligence, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Panama Papers, Pandora Papers

On August 8, 2023, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly (216–102) to pass Revised Resolution 100 (the “Resolution”), which in turn revised ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 and its Comments (the “Rule”) to explicitly recognize a lawyer’s duty to assess the facts and circumstances of a representation at the time the lawyer is engaged and throughout the representation to ensure that the lawyer’s services are not used to “commit or further a crime or fraud.”

The Comments to the Rule clearly illustrate that the ABA is concerned with the use of a lawyer’s services to—wittingly or unwittingly—assist clients in laundering money. The Resolution itself acknowledges this, stating “the impetus for these proposed amendments was lawyers’ unwitting involvement in or failure to pay appropriate attention to signs or warnings of danger . . . relating to a client’s use of a lawyer’s services to facilitate possible money laundering and terrorist financing activities.” And the ABA’s press release echoes this concern, noting the Rule was revised “because of concern that lawyers’ services can be used for money laundering and other criminal and fraudulent activity.”

Continue Reading American Bar Association Revises Model Rule of Professional Conduct to Combat Money Laundering

The Corporate Transparency Act: A Podcast

By Peter D. Hardy on March 24, 2021

Posted in AMLA of 2020, Beneficial Ownership, BSA AML Reform, Corporate Transparency Act, Panama Papers

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…

Using Art to Evade Sanctions and Launder Money: The Senate Report

By Alexa L. Levy & Peter D. Hardy on August 6, 2020

Posted in Art and Antiquities, Beneficial Ownership, European Union, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Panama Papers, Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), Terrorism Financing

Is Art an “Ideal Playing Ground” for Money Laundering?

Last week, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the U.S. Senate released a detailed, 147-page report titled “The Art Industry and U.S. Policies That Undermine Sanctions” (“the Report”). Although the Report ostensibly addresses the evasion of U.S. sanctions law, much of the Report actually focuses on the connection between high-end art and potential money laundering schemes and anti-money laundering (“AML”) risks. Among other proposals, the Report recommends that the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) be amended to include art dealers as “financial institutions” subject to AML obligations under the BSA.

The Report focuses on an elaborate case study documenting how certain Russian oligarchs allegedly used transactions involving high-end art and shell companies to evade U.S. sanctions, imposed on them on March 20, 2014 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. We will not focus on the detailed allegations in the Report regarding the particular facts of this alleged scheme, or the alleged involvement of certain major art auction houses. Rather, we will focus on the more general sections in the Report relating to systemic concerns about the potential role of high-end art in money laundering schemes, and the more general findings of fact and recommendations generated by these concerns.

The Report was not issued in a vacuum; rather, it clearly was written in part to spur legislative action. Proposed legislation on BSA/AML reform is pending before the U.S. Congress and Senate, including a proposal – currently nestled within a lengthy proposed amendment to a defense spending bill – to (i) add to the list of “financial institutions” covered by the BSA “a person trading or acting as an intermediary in the trade of antiquities, including an advisor, consultant or any other person who engages as a business in the solicitation of the sale of antiquities;” and (ii) require a study by the Secretary of the Treasury “on the facilitation of money laundering and terror finance through the trade of works of art or antiquities,” including an evaluation of whether certain art industry markets (“by size, entity type, domestic or international geographic locations, or otherwise”) should be regulated under the BSA. And, this general issue has been percolating for some time. Last year, we blogged in detail about the potential role of high-end art and antiquities in money laundering schemes, and the voluntary AML programs which art dealers might adopt to combat such schemes.
Continue Reading Using Art to Evade Sanctions and Launder Money: The Senate Report

Proposed Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act Adds Whistleblower Incentives and Protections

By Priya Roy on April 8, 2019

Posted in Bribery, BSA AML Reform, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), International Tax Evasion, Panama Papers, Terrorism Financing, Whistleblower

Proposed Legislation Creates Rewards Program for Whistleblowers of Foreign Government Corruption

Third Post in a Three-Post Series

Newly proposed legislation, if passed, will authorize a whistleblower program for individuals providing law enforcement with information leading to the seizure, forfeiture, and/or repatriation of foreign stolen assets that come within the possession or control of any United States person.

In early March, the House Financial Services Committee released three proposed bills to codify many of the suggested reforms discussed during ongoing conversation among financial agencies, law enforcement, financial institutions, and commentators regarding the Bank Secretary Act (“BSA”) and Anti-Money-Laundering (“AML”) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (“CFT”) laws. The first two proposed bills are discussed here and here.

In this post, we summarize the last of the three proposed bills, The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act (the “Bill”). The Bill allows the Department of Treasury to provide whistleblowers not only with monetary incentives but also protective measures, including asylum for the whistleblower and his or her immediate family. As we will discuss, the Bill proposes a unique whistleblower program focused on foreign corruption, and which differs in important ways from other, established government whistleblower programs.
Continue Reading Proposed Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act Adds Whistleblower Incentives and Protections

Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 Broadens Beneficial Ownership Reporting

By Beth Moskow-Schnoll & Juliana B. Carter on March 28, 2019

Posted in Attorney Client Privilege, Attorney Liability, Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Beneficial Ownership, BSA AML Reform, Panama Papers

Proposed Legislation Would Require Beneficial Ownership Disclosure at Entity Formation

Second Post in a Three-Post Series

First U.S. Indictment Relating to Panama Papers Charges Lawyer, Asset Manager, Accountant and Client

By Peter D. Hardy & Alicia M. Went on December 13, 2018

Posted in Attorney Liability, Beneficial Ownership, Department of Justice (DOJ), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), International Tax Evasion, Offshore Account, Panama Papers

DOJ Targets Professional Enablers of Alleged Tax and Laundering Schemes

On December 4, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed an elaborate indictment charging three professionals — a lawyer, an asset manager, and an accountant — along with a client in connection with an alleged tax evasion scheme arising out of the international Panama Papers scandal. At the heart of the Panama Papers story is the former Panamanian law firm of Mossack Fonseca, which had been a key offshore legal services provider until April 2016, when it became the center of a massive global controversy because approximately 11.5 million of the firm’s internal legal and financial documents were leaked to the media. These leaked documents – publicized primarily by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“ICIJ”) – allegedly reveal a global system of undisclosed offshore accounts, money laundering and tax evasion, and how the rich and powerful around the world use shell companies to conceal assets and possible illegal activity.

The indictment and accompanying government press release stress the potentially pernicious role which professionals can play in facilitating criminal money laundering and tax schemes, as well as the role played by foreign shell companies in masking beneficial ownership. However, this indictment ultimately describes a scheme to evade taxes and hide assets. It does not allege that any of the assets were the proceeds of a separate crime, other than the tax scheme itself. Although the indictment charges a single count of conspiracy to launder money, it relies on the “international” money laundering provision, which does not require that the relevant financial transactions involve the proceeds of underlying criminality, so long as the transactions are designed to promote a criminal scheme.

In this post, we will focus solely on two of the many issues presented by the indictment: (i) the indictment “bootstraps” what are basically general tax fraud allegations into wire fraud and money laundering charges (thereby enabling the government to pursue higher statutory maximums, higher potential sentences, and criminal forfeiture, which the government would be unable to obtain through “pure” tax fraud charges), and (ii) the indictment serves as another reminder to defense lawyers of the potential consequences of presenting a client’s purportedly exculpating factual representations to the government during an investigation.
Continue Reading First U.S. Indictment Relating to Panama Papers Charges Lawyer, Asset Manager, Accountant and Client

“Panama Papers” Law Firm Announces Its Closure Due to Fallout from Massive Data Breach

By Edward J. McAndrew, Peter D. Hardy & Alicia M. Went on March 15, 2018

Posted in Attorney Client Privilege, Attorney Liability, Cybersecurity, International Tax Evasion, Offshore Account, Panama Papers

The beleaguered law firm at the center of the international Panama Papers scandal – Mossack Fonseca – has announced that it is closing its doors. It offered no apologies.

Founded in 1977 by Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca, Mossack Fonseca had been perched at the top of offshore legal services providers until April 2016, when it became ground zero for a global controversy because approximately 11.5 million of the firm’s internal legal and financial documents were leaked to the media. These leaked documents – publicized primarily by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“ICIJ”) – allegedly reveal a global system of undisclosed offshore accounts, money laundering and tax evasion, and how the rich and powerful around the world use shell companies to conceal assets and possible illegal activity.

The incident is the largest publicly disclosed data breach involving a law firm. Following the April 2016 publication of data, founding partner Ramon Fonseca and other public sources claimed that the firm’s network had been compromised by hackers sometime in 2015. Security researchers and other public sources identified numerous unpatched vulnerabilities in Mossack’s website and email server, which could have been very easily compromised by hackers. Approximately 2.6 terabytes of data – including 4.8 million emails, 3 million database files, and 2.1 million.pdf files – were leaked, including client documents dating back to the 1970s.

The Panama Papers scandal not only sharpened the national and global focus on the general risks of money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing, but it also helped fuel the international critique of the United States as a potential haven for money laundering and tax evasion due to opportunities in the U.S. to form legal entities without having to disclose the entities’ true beneficial owners. The scandal also reminded the world how lawyers potentially can facilitate their clients’ money laundering.

The incident and resulting scandal also illustrates the growing frequency, ease, and potentially devastating consequences of data breaches. Cyber incidents – whether malicious or non-malicious in nature – can threaten even the richest and most powerful people, and the breach of client confidential information held by a law firm can have serious potential legal consequences for both the firm and its affected clients.
Continue Reading “Panama Papers” Law Firm Announces Its Closure Due to Fallout from Massive Data Breach

Ballard to Co-Present on Potential Money Laundering and Ethical Risks Faced by U.S. Tax Professionals Serving Foreign Clients Bringing Funds Into the U.S.

By Peter D. Hardy on February 21, 2018

Posted in Attorney Client Privilege, Attorney Liability, Beneficial Ownership, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), International Tax Evasion, Panama Papers, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

I am honored to be part of a panel on March 1, 2018 at the Florida Tax Institute in Tampa, Florida regarding potential money laundering risks, reporting obligations and related ethical issues facing U.S. tax professionals with foreign clients bringing money and assets into the United States. The panel, entitled Working with Inbound Investors & …

Menu

Money Laundering Watch