Terrorism Financing

Subscribe to Terrorism Financing

Today we are very pleased to welcome, once again, guest blogger Dr. Kateryna Boguslavska of the Basel Institute on Governance (“Basel Institute”), who will discuss the Basel Institute’s recent release of the Basel AML Index for 2022 (the “Index”). The data-rich annual Index is a research-based ranking that assesses countries’ risk exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing. It is one of several excellent online tools developed by the Basel Institute to help both public- and private-sector practitioners tackle financial crime.  We are excited to continue this annual dialogue between the Basel Institute and Money Laundering Watch.

Established in 2003, the Basel Institute, an Associated Institute of the University of Basel, is a not-for-profit Swiss foundation dedicated to working with public and private partners around the world to prevent and combat corruption. The Institute’s work involves action, advice and research on issues including anti-corruption collective action, asset recovery, corporate governance and compliance, and more.

Dr. Kateryna Boguslavska is Project Manager for the Basel AML Index at the Basel Institute. A political scientist, she holds a PhD in Political Science from the National Academy of Science in Ukraine, a master’s degree in Comparative and International Studies from ETH Zurich as well as a master’s degree in Political Science from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine. Before joining the Basel Institute, Dr. Boguslavska worked at Chatham House in London as an Academy Fellow for the Russia and Eurasia program.

This blog post again takes the form of a Q & A session, in which Dr. Boguslavska responds to several questions posed by Money Laundering Watch about the Basel AML Index 2022. We hope you enjoy this discussion of global money laundering risks — which addresses enforcement, virtual assets, environmental crime, AML for lawyers, how the U.S. is performing, and more.  –Peter Hardy…

Continue Reading  The Basel AML Index 2022: One Step Forward, Four Steps Back. A Guest Blog.

Report Previews Potential Implications for the United States

The European Commission (“Commission”) recently released its 2022 Supranational Risk Assessment Report (“SNRA Report”) to the European Parliament and Counsel regarding the “risk of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the internal market and relating to cross-border activities.”  The SNRA Report analyzes, on a broad scale, money laundering and terrorism financing risks and proposes a plan of action to address them.  The Report also examines more specifically “sectors or products where relevant changes have been detected.” 

The SNRA Report flags the “Gambling Sector” as a “high risk” area of Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (“CFT”) concern, with a particular focus on online gambling.  According to the Commission, online gambling presents a particularly high AML/CFT risk due to factors such as “the non-face-to face element, [and] huge and complex volumes of transactions and financial flows.”  The potential use of e-money and virtual currencies, as well as the emergence of unlicensed online gambling sites, exacerbates this risk.

As the European Union (“EU”) considers how to tackle the potential risks of online gambling, the United States is simultaneously grappling with the rapid expansion of online gambling and online sports betting in particular.  Before May 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively banned commercial sports betting in most states, Nevada was the only state with legalized sports betting in the United States.  Although California ballot Proposition 27, which would have legalized online and mobile sports betting in California, failed to pass during last week’s national and state elections, more than 30 states still have legalized some form of sports betting, and there is politial pressure to continue to expand online gambling and other forms of gaming.  As Americans jockey for the immense potential receipts that the expansion of online gambling can bring, it may be worth taking a page out of the EU’s book in order to consider the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks that can accompany it.…

Continue Reading  European Commission Highlights Online Gambling’s Money Laundering Risks

Actions Highlight Risky Mix of Sanctions Law, Inadequate Transaction Monitoring and Dealing with Anonymity-Enhanced Cryptocurrencies

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) announced on October 11 simultaneous settlements with Bittrex, Inc. (“Bittrex”), a virtual currency exchange and hosted wallet provider. Under the OFAC settlement, Bittrex has agreed to pay $24,280,829.20 to settle its potential civil liability for 116,421 alleged violations of multiple sanctions programs. Under the FinCEN consent order, Bittrex agreed to pay a civil penalty of $29,280,829.20 for alleged anti-money laundering (“AML”) violations under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). FinCEN has agreed to credit Bittrex’s payment to OFAC against its penalty because it found that the alleged BSA violations “stem from some of the same underlying conduct”; thus, Bittrex’s total payments to the two regulators come to $29,280,829.20. 

According to the Department of the Treasury dual press release, the two settlements represent the first parallel enforcement actions by FinCEN and OFAC in the virtual currency and sanctions space. Also, it is OFAC’s largest virtual currency enforcement action to date. To further highlight the importance of the settlements, the press release quotes the OFAC Director Andrea Gacki and FinCEN Acting Director Himamauli Das, both sternly warning operators in the same environment as Bittrex to implement effective AML compliance and sanction screening programs.

It is conceivable that Bittrex, for years now, has been on notice that federal and state regulators are closely watching and expecting more comprehensive risk assessment programs and procedures from businesses transacting with virtual currency. As we previously blogged here, in 2019 the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) denied Bittrex’s application for a Bitlicense, citing: “deficiencies in Bittrex’s BSA/AML/OFAC compliance program; a deficiency in meeting the Department’s capital requirement; and deficient due diligence and control over Bittrex’s token and product launches.”  In its letter denying Bittrex’s application, NYDFS set forth in detail the deficiencies it found in Bittrex’s BSA/AML/OFAC compliance program, noting that Bittrex’s compliance policies and procedures “are either non-existent or inadequate.”

As we will discuss, the FinCEN consent order highlights Bittrex’s alleged failure to address adequately the overall risk environment in which it operated, including transactions involving anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies, or AECs.  The consent order also highlights two repeated themes in enforcement actions: lack of adequate compliance staff, and a seemingly robust written compliance policy that was not matched by an effective day-to-day transaction monitoring system.…

Continue Reading  OFAC and FinCEN Settle with Bittrex in Parallel Virtual Currency Enforcements

On August 8, the U.S. Department of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctioned “notorious” virtual currency “mixer” Tornado Cash, which allegedly has been used to launder more than $7 billion worth of virtual currency since its creation in 2019.  Tornado Cash is a virtual currency mixer that operates on the Ethereum blockchain.  Tornado Cash receives a variety of transactions and mixes them together before transmitting them to their individual recipients.  The stated purpose of such mixing is to increase privacy, but mixers are often used by illicit actors to launder funds because the process enhances anonymity and makes it very hard to track the flow of funds.  According to the Treasury Department press release, “[d]espite public assurances otherwise, Tornado Cash has repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risk.”  This statement seems to imply that Tornado Cash is run by actual people – an implication that is at the heart of the controversy over these sanctions, as we will discuss.

The sanctions against Tornado Cash have elicited enormous controversy in the crypto world because, some argue, (1) Tornado Cash is not an entity run by actual people, but is merely code; and (2) although OFAC has the legal authority to sanction people and entities, it lacks such authority to sanction code or a technology – or at the very least, such sanctions create many practical problems for innocent actors, including in ways which no one has foreseen fully.  As we discuss,  even a member of the U.S. House of Representatives has waded into the controversy this week, questioning the ability of OFAC to issue the sanctions and demanding answers.  The controversy also reflects that, once again, whether one chooses to focus on the word “privacy” or on the word “anonymity” typically reflects an a priori value judgment predicting one’s conclusion as to whether something in the crypto world is good or bad. 

Indisputably, the Tornado Cash sanctions are, to date, unique and unprecedented.  Although they may turn out to be an outlier experiment by OFAC, public pronouncements by the U.S. Treasury Department strongly suggest that, to the contrary, they represent part of the future of crypto regulation, in which the enormous power of the U.S. government to issue broad sanctions obliterates legal and practical hurdles which could stymie other agencies, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).  This may be because, ultimately, the government actually agrees that no person is in control of a powerful technology that has easy application for malicious uses, and that is precisely the problem.…

Continue Reading  OFAC Sanctions Virtual Currency “Mixer” Tornado Cash and Faces Crypto Backlash

Strategy Includes Professionals Not Yet Covered by BSA

On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Treasury (“Treasury”) released its 2022 Strategy for Combatting Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (“2022 Strategy”).  The proposed 2022 Strategy, prepared pursuant to Sections 261 and 262 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), outlines four goals to address the key risks identified by the 2022 National Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Proliferation Financing Risk Assessments:

  • Increasing transparency and closing legal and regulatory gaps in the U.S. Anti-Money Laundering / Combating the Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) framework exploited by bad actors;
  • Making the AML/CFT regulatory framework for financial institutions more effective and efficient;
  • Enhancing operational effectiveness in combating illicit finance; and
  • Utilizing technological innovation to combat illicit finance risks.

The 2022 Strategy is incredibly broad, identifying sixteen threats and vulnerabilities to the AML/CFT system as top priorities, and providing fourteen separate supporting actions necessary to achieve Treasury’s four goals outlined above.  This post summarizes the priorities outlined in the 2022 Strategy, and details the specific supporting action targeting financial intermediaries and gatekeepers not presently covered by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), such as investment advisors, lawyers and accountants. …

Continue Reading  U.S. Treasury Releases 2022 Strategy for Combatting Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing

Enforcement Trends, Crypto, the AML Act — and More

We are very pleased to be moderating, once again, the Practising Law Institute’s 2022 Anti-Money Laundering Conference on May 17, 2022, starting at 9 a.m. This year’s conference will be both live and virtual — and it will be as informative, interesting and timely as always. …

But AML Concerns Linger As To “High End” Art and NFTs

On February 4, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published a study (the “Study”) on the facilitation of money laundering (“ML”) and terrorist financing (“TF”) through the trade in works of art.  The study was commissioned as a result of Section 6110(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (the “Act”), which required Treasury to examine art market participants and sectors of the art market that may present ML/TF risks to the U.S. financial system, and examine what steps regulators might take to mitigate these risks.

According to the press release accompanying the Study, “[s]everal qualities inherent to high-value art – the way it is bought and sold and certain market participants – may make the high-value art market attractive for money laundering by criminals. These include the high dollar value of transactions, transportability of goods, a longstanding culture of privacy and use of intermediaries (e.g., shell companies and art advisors), and the increasing use of high-value art as an investment class.”  As we will discuss, the Study proposes four scenarios—two regulatory and two nonregulatory—to mitigate money laundering risks in the art industry. Ultimately, however, the Study concludes that, “[w]eighed against other sectors that pose ML/TF risks, . . . the art market should not be an immediate focus for the imposition of comprehensive AML/CFT requirements.” (emphasis added).  Accordingly, any ML/TF regulation of the art trade will not happen soon.

Ironically, dealers in antiquities – an industry dwarfed by the size of the global art market – are not so lucky, because Congress already has subjected them to anti-money laundering (“AML”) duties.  As we blogged, the Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act’s (“BSA”) definition of “financial institution” to include those “engaged in the trade of antiquities, including an advisor, consultant, or any other person who engages as a business in the solicitation or the sale of antiquities, subject to regulations prescribed by the [Treasury] Secretary.”  The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) still must issue implementing regulations for antiquities dealers.
Continue Reading  Treasury Report:  No Immediate Need for BSA Regulations for the Art Industry

Global environmental crime—the third largest illicit activity in the world, according to a report by the FATF—is estimated to generate hundreds of billions in illicit proceeds annually.  This criminal activity harms human health, the climate, and natural resources.  To help address the threat presented by environmental crimes, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an environmental crimes and associated illicit financial activity notice (Notice) on November 18, 2021.  The FinCEN Notice states that environmental crime and related illicit financial activity are associated strongly with corruption and transnational criminal organizations, both of which FinCEN has identified as national anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) priorities for financial institutions to detect and report.

We have blogged with increasing frequency (see here, here, here and here) on the nexus between environmental crime and illicit financial flows, and how these money laundering risks are often overlooked and are especially difficult for financial institutions to monitor.  Environmental offenses are also receiving more attention in the U.S., in part because of the growing interest by investors, companies and regulators in ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) concerns.

The Notice includes an appendix that describes five categories of environmental crimes and the illicit financial activity related to them: wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, illegal mining, and waste and hazardous substances trafficking.  The Notice also includes new suspicious activity report (SAR) filing instructions in order to enhance analysis and reporting of illicit financial flows related to environmental crime.
Continue Reading  FinCEN Issues Notice on Environmental Crimes and Illicit Financial Activity

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has been busy during the last few weeks – and presumably will remain busy for the rest of 2021, as it attempts to satisfy numerous mandates imposed by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020.  In October, in addition to issuing an analysis of Suspicious Activity Reports and ransomware, FinCEN extended its Geographic Targeting Order for real estate transactions; issued exceptive relief providing that a casino may use suitable non-documentary methods to verify the identity of online customers; and reminded U.S. financial institutions to account for the fact that the Financial Action Task Force added and removed countries from its list of jurisdictions with anti-money laundering (“AML”) deficiencies.  We discuss each of these developments in turn.
Continue Reading  FinCEN Round-Up:  Real Estate GTOs, Exceptive Relief for On-Line Gaming for Non-Documentary Customer Verification, and the FATF Grey and Black Lists

Second Post in a Two-Part Series on Recent OFAC Designations

As we blogged yesterday, OFAC has been busy.  Right before OFAC designated the virtual currency exchange SUEX for allegedly facilitating ransomware payments,  OFAC announced another significant but more traditional action on September 17, 2021 by designating members of a network of Lebanon and Kuwait-based…