InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC releases May enforcement actions
On June 24, the FDIC released a list of 14 public enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in May. These orders consist of “two consent orders, one modification of an 8(e) prohibition order, three orders to pay civil money penalty, three orders of prohibition, two section 19 orders, and one order of prohibition from further participation and order to pay, one order terminating amended supervisory prompt corrective action directive, and one order of termination of insurance.” Included is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Texas-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank failed “to obtain flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone, including multiple structures,” and failed “to force-place flood insurance, after loan origination, when the insurance on buildings securing the loan” was insufficient or nonexistent. The order assessed a $2,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order against a Utah-based bank based on alleged unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, “increase its oversight of the Bank's compliance with the BSA” and “conduct a comprehensive assessment of BSA/AML staffing needs.”
FinCEN issues warning on elder financial exploitation
On June 15, FinCEN issued an advisory alerting financial institutions about the increase of elder financial exploitation (EFE). EFE involves the illegal or improper use of an older adult’s funds, among other things, and is often perpetrated either through theft or scams. According to the advisory, financial institutions filed 72,000 suspicious activity reports in 2021 related to EFE—an increase of 10,000 reports from 2020. The advisory provides updated typologies since FinCEN issued its first advisory on the issue in 2011, and highlights behavioral and financial red flags to aid financial institutions with identifying, preventing, and reporting suspected EFE. The announcement also refers to the risk-based approach to compliance under the Bank Secrecy Act, which provides that “[f]inancial institutions should perform additional due diligence where appropriate and remain alert to any suspicious activity that could indicate that their customers are perpetrators, facilitators, or victims of EFE.”
OCC seeks comments on BSA/AML risk assessment
On June 8, the OCC issued a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments concerning its information collection titled, ‘‘Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering Risk Assessment,’’ also known as the Money Laundering Risk (MLR) System. According to the notice, the MLR System “enhances the ability of examiners and bank management to identify and evaluate Bank Secrecy Act/Money Laundering and Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) sanctions risks associated with banks’ products, services, customers, and locations.” The notice stated that the agency will collect MLR information for OCC supervised community and trust banks, and explained that the annual Risk Summary Form (RSF), which collects data about different products, services, customers, and geographies (PSCs), will include three significant changes in 2022. The changes in the 2022 RSF are: (i) the addition of six new PSCs; (ii) the addition of three new customer types under the money transmitters category; and (iii) the deletion of four existing PSCs. Comments close on August 8.
FinCEN issues ANPRM on no-action letter process
On June 3, FinCEN issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on questions related to implementing a no-action letter process at the agency. The ANPRM is part of FinCEN’s implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which directed the agency to conduct an assessment of a no-action letter process concerning how anti-money laundering or countering the financing of terrorism laws may apply to specific conduct. The ANPRM follows FinCEN’s June 2021 report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded that the agency should undertake rulemaking to establish a process for issuing no-action letters that will supplement its current forms of regulatory guidance and relief. FinCEN noted in its announcement that the addition of a no-action letter process (“generally understood to be a form of enforcement discretion where an agency states by letter that it will not take an enforcement action against the submitting party for the specific conduct presented to the agency”) could overlap with and “affect other forms of regulatory guidance and relief that FinCEN already offers, including administrative rulings and exceptive or exemptive relief.” The agency is seeking public input on whether the process should be implemented and, if so, how the process should work. Included in the ANPRM are questions concerning, among other things, FinCEN jurisdiction (specifically “[w]hat is the value of establishing a FinCEN no-action letter process if other regulators with jurisdiction over the same entity do not issue a similar no-action letter”), whether there should be limitations on which factual circumstances could be considered, and whether the scope of a no-action letter should be limited so that requests may not be submitted during a Bank Secrecy Act examination. The ANPRM also asked questions related to changes in circumstances, revocations, denials and withdrawals, confidentiality and consultation concerns, and criteria for distinguishing no-action letters from administrative rulings or exceptive/exemptive relief.
Comments on the ANPRM are due August 5.
OCC releases enforcement actions
On May 19, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included is a cease and desist order against an Alaska-based bank for allegedly engaging in Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) program violations. The bank allegedly “failed to adopt and implement a compliance program that adequately covers the required BSA/AML program elements, including, in particular, internal controls for customer due diligence and procedures for monitoring suspicious activity, BSA officer and staff, and training.” The order requires the bank to, among other things, establish a compliance committee, submit a BSA/AML action plan, and develop a written suspicious activity monitoring and reporting program.
OCC issues consent order against digital asset bank for AML deficiencies
On April 21, the OCC issued a consent order against the first federally-chartered bank focused on cryptocurrencies, just 15 months after granting the institution a national bank charter for purposes of taking custody of cryptocurrency. The consent order alleged failure to adopt and implement a compliance program that adequately covers required BSA/AML program elements. In January 2021, the OCC granted conditional approval to convert the bank’s charter to a national association with the “enforceable condition of approval” that the bank would, among other things, meet BSA/AML requirements.
OCC issues final rule on authority for SAR requirements
On April 14, the OCC issued a bulletin reminding regulated banks of a final rule amending the agency’s suspicious activity report (SAR) regulations. The final rule takes effect May 1 (covered by InfoBytes here). Generally, the final rule clarifies the processes by which the OCC may issue exemptions from the requirements of the SAR regulations “based on a request … [for an exemption] that meets the criteria specified in the final rule.” The bulletin notes, however, that the final rule does not itself create any exemptions from the SAR regulations.
FinCEN fines company for willfully failing to comply with GTO
On April 1, FinCEN announced its first enforcement action for failing to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO). The 2014 GTO in question was designed to combat what FinCEN and the Department of Justice viewed as widespread trade-based money laundering in the Los Angeles Fashion District, in which businesses accepted bulk cash from Mexican drug trafficking organizations as part the black market peso exchange. The GTO required that a wide range of non-financial businesses within the Los Angeles Fashion District, including perfume stores, travel agencies, and electronics stores, report and keep records related to whether they “received currency in excess of $3,000 in one transaction or two or more related transactions in a 24-hour period.” FinCEN imposed a $275,000 penalty on a perfume company in the Los Angeles Fashion District for failure to report more than 114 covered transactions worth more than $2.3 million. According to FinCEN, these failures were first identified in a 2015 examination by the IRS. Later attempts made by the company to submit reports for the 114 transactions were declared “substantially incomplete,” as the reports, among other things, failed to include customer information or any indication that the cash payments were made on behalf of another person or business. The IRS rejected the reports and referred the matter to FinCEN, who conducted an investigation and determined that the company failed to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements until long after it became aware of the GTO.
The $275,000 civil money penalty was assessed based on a number of factors, including the company’s allegedly willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and the nature and seriousness of the violations, including the extent of possible public harm and the amounts involved. FinCEN noted that “[w]hile there is no direct evidence indicating that the unreported transactions involved illegal activity or the proceeds of illegal activity, the company’s failures were significant and led to the loss of valuable financial intelligence that could assist law enforcement efforts against significant money laundering activity on behalf of international drug trafficking organizations.” FinCEN also stated that the company’s actions impacted the agency’s mission to safeguard the financial system and target specific illicit financial threats, and that the company’s systemic failure to take any action in response to the GTO enabled them to continue.
“FinCEN’s enforcement action puts nonfinancial trades and businesses on notice that they must comply with Geographic Targeting Orders,” FinCEN’s acting Director Himamauli Das stated. “This action also illustrates FinCEN’s long-standing efforts to partner with other government agencies to combat money laundering schemes designed to launder the proceeds of criminal activity through nonfinancial trades and businesses in the United States.”
FinCEN’s interactive SAR stats now include 2021 data
On March 28, FinCEN announced that its Interactive SAR Stats webpage now includes Filing Trend Data by industry updated through December 31, 2021. As previously covered by InfoBytes, SAR Stats—formerly called By the Numbers—is an annual compilation of numerical data gathered from the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by financial institutions using FinCEN’s new unified SAR form and e-filing process. Interactive SAR Stats provide users the opportunity to find FinCEN’s trend data for aggregated counts of defined suspicious activities that financial institutions file with FinCEN as required by the Bank Secrecy Act.
Treasury official says it’s time to reconsider “culture of compliance”
On March 21, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Elizabeth Rosenberg delivered remarks before the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) Hollywood Conference, asking attendees to consider “[w]hat must a culture of compliance look like in a world where autocracy is on the rise” and how financial institutions should adapt their Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (AML) obligations to ensure they are effective. Rosenberg praised the quick responses taken by financial institutions and financial service providers in implementing the growing list of sanctions against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support structure in light of the recent invasion of Ukraine. “Russia’s war has meaningfully expanded AML and sanctions obligations,” Rosenberg cautioned, stressing it was time for an updated approach to considering and managing risk. “Geopolitical events are evolving fast, and we need financial institutions more than ever to act swiftly as we in the government are pushing out new designations and advisories almost daily.” She instructed attendees to “think about risk and enhanced due diligence when it comes to Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats who may not have been priorities for [entities’] compliance efforts in early February but are now crucial players, supporting Putin’s power structure.”
Rosenberg further noted that Treasury’s efforts would be aided if public and private sectors were faster about sharing information and if information sharing was improved “across borders, between financial institutions, and with the government.” Closing money laundering and global passport loopholes through which sanctioned actors can move funds and assets around the globe is also critical, Rosenberg stated. She also highlighted the U.S. government’s recent collaboration with foreign partners to help countries effectively take measures to “find, restrain, freeze, and where appropriate, to confiscate the assets of those who have been sanctioned in connection with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” These multilateral efforts include the recent launch of the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs multilateral task force, and Treasury’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program, as well as recently issued FinCEN advisories to help compliance officials better identify Russian sanctions evasion and suspicious financial activity including through real estate, luxury goods, and other high-value assets. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.