Search results

A thoughtful review of the anti‐money laundering laws and rules with specific application to investment funds. It examines where hedge funds and the like are vulnerable under the new law and what the authorities may be looking at.

The anti‐money‐laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) continue to cause a profound transformation in the way the United States investment industry conducts its business. Over the past year under the authority of the Patriot Act, which amended the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), the United States Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) and the relevant federal regulators have issued rules requiring a broad range of compliance mechanisms, including: the establishment of anti‐money‐laundering (“AML”) programs; the filing of suspicious activity reports; the prohibition against providing financial services to foreign shell banks (i.e., banks without physical locations); the maintenance of records with respect to accounts for foreign banks; and the sharing of transactional information among financial institutions and between financial institutions and law enforcement.

The blurring of the lines between banks, insurance companies and broker‐dealers continues. As we go to press, yet another merger has been announced. The application of the Anti‐Money Laundering Act of 1992 to the securities industry becomes more and more obvious. This article explores the act with particular attention to the safe harbor, which exists to encourage banks (financial institutions) to report suspicious activity while hopefully falling under the protection of the Act, so as not to be exposed to civil liability.

An analysis of two recent decisions concerning both the NASD and the NYSE involving determinations as to whether or not there are colorable claims that each SRO is acting in a “governmental” capacity.

The purpose of this paper is to describe guidance (“the Guidance”) issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), the Federal Banking Regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission on obtaining beneficial ownership information for certain accounts and customer relationships.

The paper summarizes the principal content of the Guidance, including the importance of customer due diligence (CDD) policies as the cornerstone of a Bank Secrecy Act/Anti‐Money‐Laundering program, the need for a CDD program to identify and verify the beneficial owners of an account, steps that should be included in CDD procedures to protect against heightened risks related to the beneficial owners of an account, enhanced due diligence that is appropriate for accounts that pose heightened risk, the suggestion in the Guidance to implement CDD policies and procedures on an enterprise‐wide basis, and requirements for private bank account and correspondent bank account due diligence programs.

The Guidance appears to expand certain concepts previously applied to banks by the Federal Banking Regulators to other financial institutions, including broker‐dealers, futures commission merchants, mutual funds, insurance companies, and money services businesses. It also appears to expand concepts set forth in Rule 312 of the PATRIOT Act beyond private banking and correspondent banking.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The purpose of the paper is to explain FinCEN's money services business rule (MSB Rule) revising the regulations that apply to MSBs.

The paper details the principal revisions in the new MSB Rule, including an amended definition of an MSB, an activity threshold, and applicability of the rule to foreign‐located MSBs, money transmitters, dealers in foreign exchange, check cashiers, and issuers of travelers' checks as defined in the rule.

The final rule clarifies which activities subject a person to the Bank Secrecy Act's rules pertaining to MSBs and subjects certain foreign‐located MSBs with a US presence to US rules.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Discusses the most significant criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions in response to recent anti‐money laundering compliance lapses and the resulting concern in the financial community.

Reviews earlier criminal enforcement actions; the recent prosecution of Riggs Bank; non‐criminal regulatory enforcement actions toward Banco de Chile, Korea Exchange Bank, Arab Bank, and Gulf Corporation; additional consent orders and supervisory agreements requiring enhancement of PATRIOT Act and Bank Secrecy Act compliance systems at more than 20 banks; broker‐dealer actions; and other actions.

Concludes that both law enforcement and regulators have embraced stricter anti‐money‐laundering enforcement standards despite some criticism from the financial industry, and that recent criminal enforcement actions bear careful analysis by the financial community; predicts that regulators and law enforcement officials will broaden their scope from banking institutions to include broker‐dealers and other non‐bank institutions as well; and recommends that all financial institutions devote greater resources to establish effective anti‐money‐laundering policies and procedures, particularly in the areas of due diligence for high‐risk customers and suspicious activity reporting (SAR).

A detailed review of recent anti‐money‐laundering violations and enforcement actions along with practical recommendations for financial institutions by two expert compliance lawyers with a specialty in anti‐money‐laundering.

The purpose of this article is to explain recent enforcement trends under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), providing examples of recent cases.

The paper describes recent trends in FCPA enforcement, including increased enforcement by US authorities, greater vigilance by private industry, and global anti‐corruption efforts. It provides an overview of the FCPA, including the original reason why the Act was passed, its anti‐bribery provisions, the need to show corrupt intent, the interstate commerce requirement, exceptions and affirmative defenses, record‐keeping and control provisions, and penalties. It describes recent FCPA prosecutions and enforcement actions and draws conclusions on how to reduce FCPA risk.

The FCPA is a Watergate‐era law that was passed in response to disclosures by a number of large US corporations that they had made illicit payments to foreign government officials. The FCPA applies to bribes by any US issuer or domestic concern, paid to any foreign official, foreign political party, official or candidate, or official of a public international organization in order to assist in obtaining, retaining, or directing business. To prosecute, the government must show corrupt intent. The FCPA also contains provisions that require accurate record‐keeping and internal controls of US issuers. Violations of the FCPA are subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

The paper presents a thorough explanation, practical advice, and examples of recent violations and penalties by experienced lawyers specializing in FCPA compliance as well as white‐collar defense, securities regulatory matters, internal investigations, and anti‐money laundering.