InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FinCEN Recognizes Law Enforcement Agencies For Use of BSA Data, Holds First-Ever Law Enforcement Awards Ceremony
On May 12, FinCEN held its first-ever Law Enforcement Awards, recognizing law enforcement agencies that made effective use of BSA data in criminal investigations which lead to a successful prosecution. The awards were presented in six different categories: (i) SAR Review/Task Force; (ii) Third Party Money Launderers; (iii) Transnational Organized Crime; (iv) Cyber Threats; (v) Significant Fraud; and (vi) Transnational Security Threats. In prepared remarks, FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery noted the importance of BSA data to the financial industry, stating that the data is used to confront serious threats to the U.S. financial system including massive fraud schemes, cyberthreats, foreign corruption, drug trafficking, and terrorist organizations.
FinCEN Resolves First Enforcement Action Against Virtual Currency Exchange
On May 5, a virtual currency company and its subsidiary agreed to pay a $700,000 civil money penalty for violating multiple provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), in which both companies acted as a money service business and seller of virtual currency without properly registering with FinCEN, as well as, failed to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) program. Furthermore, according to a Statement of Facts and Violations, FinCEN also charged the subsidiary for not filing or untimely filing suspicious activity reports related to several financial transactions. In addition to the civil money penalty, terms of the agreement require both companies to, among other things, (i) engage in remedial steps to ensure future compliance with AML statutory obligations; and (ii) enhance their current internal measures for compliance with the BSA. In a separate DOJ announcement, both companies entered into a settlement agreement to resolve potential criminal charges with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California. Under terms of the DOJ settlement, both companies agreed to forfeit a total of $450,000, which will be credited to satisfy FinCEN’s $700,000 penalty, in exchange for the government not criminally prosecuting the companies for the aforementioned conduct.
FinCEN Eyes Real Estate Industry For Money Laundering Concerns
On May 6, FinCen Director Jennifer Calvery delivered remarks at the West Coast AML Forum, highlighting the agency’s increased focus to ensure transparency within the U.S. financial system. In her remarks, Calvery addressed concerns about potential money laundering activities in the real estate market, particularly for persons involved in real estate closings and settlements. The continued use of shell companies by criminals to purchase luxury residential real estate is of particular concern. Of note, Calvery referenced prior FinCEN efforts to define the scope of BSA obligations involving real estate closings and settlements, and that it has thus far deferred issuing rules likely to cover settlement and closing attorneys and agents, appraisers, title search and insurance companies, escrow companies, and possibly mortgage servicers and corporate service providers until it better identifies the money laundering risks and activities involved. Calvery also described criminal organizations’ use of third-party money launderers, such as accountants or attorneys, to obtain access to U.S. financial institutions, stating “[FinCEN] cannot permit institutions and their associated [third-party money launderers] to act as gateways to the U.S. financial system for criminal and other bad actors.” Calvery also provided an update on FinCEN’s current efforts to address beneficial ownership and ensure BSA compliance in the virtual currency market using the recent Ripple enforcement action as an example.
FinCEN Assesses $75,000 Penalty Against Check Casher Business for Violating Anti-Money Laundering Laws
On March 18, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) assessed a $75,000 civil money penalty against a Colorado check casher and its general manager and ordered it to cease all business activities for “willfully violating” registration, reporting, and anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The Colorado-based check casher had been the subject of three BSA compliance examinations by the Internal Revenue Service, “all of which found significant and repeated violations.” Under the BSA, money services business are required to implement anti-money laundering controls, conduct internal compliance reviews, and provide compliance training for all staff in an effort to prevent the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. The Colorado check casher failed to employ such programs, which resulted in a significant amount of untimely and inaccurate currency transaction reports.
DOJ Announces Settlement with California Bank Over BSA & FIRREA Violations
On March 10, the DOJ announced a $4.9 million civil and criminal settlement with a California-based bank. The bank admitted to the DOJ’s allegations that, from December 2011 through July 2013, it ignored warning signs indicating that its third party processor was defrauding hundreds of thousands of consumers by allowing fraudulent merchants to withdraw money from customers’ accounts without consent. The bank chose to ignore the complaints and inquiries it received regarding the third party processor’s activity, failing to terminate its affiliation with the entity or file a Suspicious Activity Report. The DOJ’s complaint alleges that the bank violated FIRREA; the $4.9 million settlement will cover both the criminal and civil charges, however under an agreed deferred prosecution agreement, criminal charges will be deferred for two years contingent upon the bank admitting to wrongdoing and giving up claims to approximately $2.9 million from accounts seized by the government.
New York DFS Takes Action Against Bank for BSA/AML Compliance Deficiencies
On March 12, the New York DFS issued a consent order against a Germany-based global bank for alleged Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance violations that occurred between 2002 and 2008. According to the DFS’s press release, certain bank employees were selected “to manually process Iranian transactions — specifically, to strip from SWIFT payment messages any identifying information that could trigger OFAC-related controls and possibly lead to delay or outright rejection of the transaction in the United States.” The DFS also alleges that the bank’s New York branch failed to implement proper BSA/AML compliance thresholds, allowing certain alerts regarding suspicious transactions to be excluded. Under the terms of the consent order, the bank must pay a $1.45 billion penalty, to be distributed as follows: $610 million to the DFS; $300 million to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; $200 million to the Federal Reserve; $172 million to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office; and $172 million to the U.S. DOJ. Additionally, the order requires that the bank “terminate individual employees who engaged in misconduct, and install an independent monitor for Banking Law violations in connection with transactions on behalf of Iran, Sudan, and a Japanese corporation that engaged in accounting fraud.”
OCC Comptroller Delivers Remarks Regarding BSA/AML Compliance
On March 2, OCC Comptroller Curry delivered remarks before the Institute of International Bankers regarding BSA/AML compliance obligations for financial institutions. During his remarks, Comptroller Curry emphasized that a top priority for the OCC has been to strengthen BSA/AML compliance at its supervised institutions. In this regard, the OCC has (i) modified its bank examination process so that BSA deficiencies receive proper emphasis in the evaluation of safety and soundness; (ii) focused on the BSA/AML risks posed by third-party relationships; (iii) required that institutions adequately resource their BSA/AML compliance programs; (iv) required institutions to assign accountability for BSA/AML compliance across all business lines presenting BSA/AML risk; and (v) taken enforcement action to enforce BSA/AML compliance when appropriate. Through his remarks, Comptroller Curry also addressed the need to improve the BSA/AML regulatory framework itself. Specifically, Comptroller Curry indicated that the OCC wanted (i) to streamline the SAR reporting process, (ii) to find better ways to use technology to advance BSA/AML goals, and (iii) to increase information sharing by creating safe harbors from civil liability both for financial institutions that file SARs and for financial institutions that share information about financial crimes with each other.
FinCEN Fines Community Bank Over BSA Violations
On February 27, FinCEN announced a $1.5 million civil money penalty against a Pennsylvania-based community bank for violating the BSA. Of that amount, $500,000 will go to the OCC, the bank’s primary regulator, for BSA violations. According to FinCEN, the bank admitted failing to file suspicious activity reports on transactions involving a former state judge who received over $2.6 million in personal payments in connection with a judicial scheme involving the construction, operation, and expansion of juvenile detention centers.
FinCrimes Webinar Series Recap: Individual Liability - FinCrimes Professionals in the Spotlight
BuckleySandler hosted a webinar, Individual Liability: Financial Crimes Professionals in the Spotlight, on January 22, 2015 as part of its ongoing FinCrimes Webinar Series. Panelists included Polly Greenberg, Chief, Major Economic Crimes Bureau at the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and Richard Small, Senior Vice President for Enterprise-Wide AML, Anti-Corruption and International Regulatory Compliance at American Express. The following is a summary of the guided conversation moderated by Jamie Parkinson, Partner at BuckleySandler, and key take-aways you can implement in your company.
Best Practice Tips and Take-Aways:
- Be completely transparent with senior management and your board of directors when escalating issues and concerns. Document your requests for program enhancements and management responses.
- Assure yourself that your team is up to the task at hand, adequately resourced and knows that they can escalate anything that concerns them to compliance and/or senior management/the Board.
- When considering the quality of your compliance program, be sure that your program is tested internally by your compliance function, tested again by your organization’s internal audit team, and in addition is examined every few years by external counsel/consultant.
- If confronted with management unwillingness to commit adequate headcount and resources necessary to the compliance program, serious consideration has to be given to resigning and/or reporting these deficiencies.
Significant Actions and Regulatory Statements
The discussion began by giving an overview of trends in enforcement actions in the last few decades, commenting that this topic has been simmering for a long time. In the Bank context, in the late 1980s a series of prosecutions against the Bank of New England, Shearson Lehman, and Bank Boston involved efforts to hold the institution as well as individuals liable. Largely, the government had success against the institutions on theories of collective knowledge and willful blindness but was less successful when prosecuting individuals.
In the brokerage context, the SEC has brought recent actions as part of the Compliance Program Initiative, including charges against compliance personnel when they were clearly responsible for the failure to adopt or implement adequate compliance programs. The SEC has signaled that it will take action against compliance officers if:
- They actively participated in misconduct;
- They helped mislead regulators; or
- They have clear responsibility to implement compliance programs or policies and wholly failed to carry out that responsibility.
Then identified recent enforcement actions taken against board members, including Pacific National Bank involving a failure to remedy deficiencies in that institution’s BSA program. In the Pacific National Bank case, the OCC levied individual fines against the bank’s chairman and three board members who served on its BSA compliance committee for failing to act in their official capacities to correct the failures.
Finally, identified remarks made by three key regulators at the November 2013 ABA/ABA and the March 2014 ACAMS conferences. These speeches reflect clear statements with respect to the government’s intention to hold individuals personally liable when the facts warrant. The remarks were made by:
- Jim Cole (Deputy Attorney General, retired Jan. 8, 2015)
- Thomas Curry (Comptroller of the Currency)
- Jennifer Shasky Calvery (Director, FINCEN)
Mr. Small then gave an overview of two significant enforcement actions that involved individual liability. The first case, Brown Brothers Harriman, was brought by FINRA in early 2014 and arose from penny stock transactions executed by the firm through an omnibus brokerage account structure. While the case resulted in an $8 million fine for Brown Brothers, the firm’s Global AML Compliance Officer, Harold Crawford, was also the subject of the enforcement action and was fined $25,000 and barred from working in a compliance function for one month. Crawford’s personal liability was premised on his alleged failure to effectively monitor suspicious activity and to report it as required. Mr. Small pointed out that there were references in the case to an internal Brown Brothers’ memorandum that was developed by their compliance group that cited the increase in potentially suspicious activity and recommended stopping the trades and discontinuing the omnibus brokerage structure that had been used to carry out the transactions. This memo was written in November 2011, and was not acted upon prior to FINRA’s action. Mr. Small observed that the Brown Brothers case was the first time that action was taken against an AML compliance officer for failures in the AML compliance program at their company. He further observed that the case raises the question of what a compliance officer should do if they are raising issues, but not receiving resources from management to address those issues.
The second action Mr. Small discussed, MoneyGram, also involved individual liability for a compliance officer. There, FINCEN and DOJ took joint action against MoneyGram related to a significant number of transactions initiated by MoneyGram that were connected to various fraud schemes. FINCEN and DOJ alleged that MoneyGram received a significant number of complaints from consumers but took no action to address them. FINCEN issued a $1 million civil money penalty against Thomas Haider, who served as ManeyGram’s Chief Compliance Officer from 2003-2008. DOJ filed a complaint to enforce the penalty and also seeking to bar Haider from employment in the financial services industry.
When asked how this case might bear on the design of a Financial Crimes compliance program, Mr. Small commented that it was his personal opinion that this case could be read as counseling against integrating an institution’s BSA compliance function with other functions, such as fraud monitoring if the compliance officer lacks the expertise or full authority over the integrated areas. For example, Mr. Haider had responsibility for performing due diligence on agents, terminating agents, and identifying fraud, in addition to suspicious activity monitoring and SAR filing. The first two of these tasks were ones over which he may not have had full authority and as to the fraud area one in which he lacked the expertise to properly oversee. The panelists agreed that while an institution’s compliance function must have unfettered access to the institution’s data, it is important that the compliance function does not take on responsibilities outside of its area of expertise.
Theories of Individual Liability
Ms. Greenberg then discussed the different theories that can be used to find individual liability. She emphasized that the underlying basis of criminal liability is criminal knowledge and intent to do a particular act. Ms. Greenberg explained that it can be easier to find liability for a corporation due to the theory of collective knowledge. Under this theory, the knowledge of the corporation’s employees is imputed to the corporation, and the corporation is bound by this collective knowledge. So, while no single employee might possess sufficient knowledge to support individual liability, numerous individuals’ knowledge may be combined and imputed to the corporation and this collective knowledge may be sufficient to hold the corporation liable.
Ms. Greenberg also discussed the theory of willful blindness, which is primarily used under federal law. Under this theory, an individual has a subjective belief that there is a high probability that a fact exists but avoids learning whether the fact actually exists. Ms. Greenberg also pointed out that there is a similar concept under New York law called conscious avoidance.
Finally, Ms. Greenberg discussed the considerations taken into account in assessing whether it is appropriate to charge an individual in the corporate crimes context. Initially, authorities must consider whether there was criminal intent and whether that intent can be proven. They must also consider whether they can prove the level of knowledge required by the relevant statute, such as, knowingly, intentionally, or willfully. After deciding that there is probable cause to believe an individual had the required intent, Ms. Greenberg explained that the authority will then consider various factors in exercising prosecutorial discretion. In deciding whether to charge an individual in the corporate crime context, fairness is given much consideration. Ms. Greenberg observed that charging higher-level employees in this context may be more common than charging lower-level employees because higher-level employees bear more responsibility for the corporation and play a much larger role in influencing the corporate culture.
Considerations for Compliance Professionals
The panelists noted that it is very important for compliance professionals to have their areas of responsibility clearly defined, and to ensure that they have the control and expertise to manage these areas appropriately, as well as sufficient resources to carry out the compliance program effectively. It was pointed out that the areas most often associated with institutional and individual liability include:
- Failures in the culture of compliance within the organizations;
- Inadequate resources committed to BSA compliance;
- Weaknesses in the organization’s technology and transaction monitoring processes; and
- Inadequacies in the quality of risk management.
Mr. Small stressed the importance of being transparent with senior management and the board of directors when faced with a lack of resources, commenting that it is important to discuss the issue, listen to any proposed alternatives, and take a stance on what the best solution is. The panelists stressed the importance of documenting your requests and the responses and agreed that such documentation can be important to enforcement authorities in deciding whether to charge individuals. The panelists agreed that the trend towards increased individual liability could result in increased SAR filings. IT was suggested that it may be safer to file a SAR when in doubt but defensive SAR filing should be avoided if possible. He noted too that it is very important to thoroughly document decisions not to file.
FinCEN Fines NY-Based Securities Broker-Dealer for Anti-Money Laundering Shortfalls
On January 27, FinCEN fined a New York securities broker-dealer firm $20 million for violating the BSA. According to the press release, the firm failed to (i) establish an adequate anti-money laundering program; (ii) conduct proper due diligence on a foreign correspondent account; and (iii) comply with Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act. These failures resulted in customers engaging in suspicious trading, including prohibited third-party activity and illegal penny stock trading, without it being detected or reported. The firm must pay $10 million of the $20 million penalty to the US Department of the Treasury. The remaining $10 million will be paid to the SEC to settle a parallel enforcement action.