Category Archives: Anti-Money Laundering (AML)

Monetary Authority of Singapore Imposes Financial Penalties, Prohibition Orders, and Reprimands for Anti-Money Laundering Breaches

by Jonathan J. Rusch

Photo of the author

Jonathan J. Rusch (photo courtesy of the author)

Since 2023, when Singapore Police arrested 10 people connected with Singapore’s largest-ever case of money laundering (involving S$3 billion in cash and assets)[1], the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been conducting supervisory examinations against pertinent financial institutions with a nexus to persons of interest in that case and certain employees of those financial institutions.

On July 4, the MAS announced regulatory actions against nine financial institutions and prohibition orders and reprimands against 18 executives and managers of those institutions for failure to comply with MAS’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements.[2]  This post will summarize those actions and identify certain lessons to be learned for AML/CFT compliance.

Continue reading →

White Collar Experts Discuss New DOJ Criminal Enforcement Priorities (Part I)

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the new enforcement priorities and revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) outlined by Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division for the DOJ, in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference on May 12, 2025.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Paul Krieger, Michael Chang-Frieden, Sharon Cohen Levin, and Andrew J. DeFilippis
Bottom left to right: David Massey, Jamie Schafer, Seetha Ramachandran, and William C. Komaroff
(photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

End of the Road: Fincen Adopts Interim Final Rule Virtually Eliminating CTA Filing Requirements

by Matthew Bisanz, Brad A. Resnikoff, Kristin E. Rice-Gonzalez, Marcella Barganz, Courtney C. Seitz, Lorenz A. Taets, and Kelly F. Truesdale

photos of the authors

Top left to right: Matthew Bisanz, Brad A. Resnikoff, Kristin E. Rice-Gonzalez, Marcella Barganz, Bottom left to right: Courtney C. Seitz, Lorenz A. Taets and Kelly F. Truesdale (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

March 21, 2025, the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an interim final rule (the “IFR”) that exempts all domestic entities from beneficial ownership information reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) and its implementing regulations (the “Reporting Rule”). These changes have the effect of eliminating any reporting requirement for more than 99.9% of the entities that were previously required to report[1] and, for domestic entities and US person beneficial owners, marking the end of the yearslong journey towards the CTAs reporting requirements, which were enacted into law in early 2021 and implemented by FinCEN’s original rulemaking  in September 2022.

Continue reading →

Cryptocurrency Exchange KuCoin Pleads Guilty to Unlicensed Money Transmission, Agrees to Pay More Than $297.4 Million in Criminal Forfeiture, Fine

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

For more than a decade, as part of its oversight of financial institutions’ compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and regulations thereunder, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has repeatedly stated that any person accepting and transmitting convertible virtual currencies (“cryptocurrencies”) must register with FinCEN as money transmitters and thereafter comply with the anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing program, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.[1]  Even so, a number of cryptocurrency or virtual currency businesses have ignored these longstanding requirements, sometimes resulting in massive criminal and civil penalties.[2]

Continue reading →

SEC Charges Investment Adviser – Signaling Importance of Accurate Disclosure of AML Procedures

by Joel Cohen, Tami Stark, Claudette Druehl, Marietou Diouf, and Jason Ho

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Joel Cohen, Tami Stark, Claudette Druehl, Marietou Diouf and Jason Ho (Photos courtesy of the authors)

The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently announced settled charges against an investment adviser for misrepresentations regarding its anti-money laundering (“AML”) procedures and compliance failures.[1]  As we outlined in our recent client alert, investment advisers will be required by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) to implement an AML program by January 1, 2026.  This SEC action does not shed new light on the scope of SEC jurisdiction over AML.  Instead, it serves as a reminder that if an investment adviser says it is voluntarily complying with AML due diligence laws by conducting AML due diligence, it needs to do so.  An investment adviser must also accurately describe its AML program once the anticipated AML requirement for investment advisers commences.

Continue reading →

TD Bank Pleads Guilty to Bank Secrecy Act and Money Laundering Conspiracy Violations – Part II: The Regulatory Agency Resolutions

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

On October 10, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) announced an extraordinary set of coordinated criminal and civil resolutions involving TD Bank, N.A. and its parent company TD Bank US Holding Company (collectively TD Bank) for systematic and years-long violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and money laundering.  The first post on the TD Bank resolutions addressed only the Department of Justice’s criminal resolution with TD Bank.[1] This post will focus on the bank’s resolutions with the regulatory agencies, and identify certain lessons to be learned from this case.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Suspends Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Nationwide

by Matthew Bisanz, Brad A. Resnikoff, and Kelly F. Truesdale

Photos of the authors

Matthew Bisanz, Brad A. Resnikoff, and Kelly F. Truesdale (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

On December 3, 2024, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations nationwide, concluding that the CTA is likely unconstitutional as it is outside Congress’s power.[1] Although not the first court to reach such a conclusion, the breadth of the relief provided by the court—applying nationwide, rather than to the specific plaintiffs—reflects a significant development, given the rapidly approaching compliance deadlines for many existing companies under the CTA.

The Texas court’s decision has immediate implications for the 32 million reporting companies facing a year-end deadline to report beneficial ownership information to the government, particularly as reporting in early December indicated that only about 30% of the estimated total filings had been received.[2] While the Texas court’s decision effectively suspends the compliance deadline—as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has confirmed—during the pendency of the injunction, the Government has already appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit and is currently seeking to stay the effect of the preliminary injunction.

Continue reading →

TD Bank Pleads Guilty to Bank Secrecy Act and Money Laundering Conspiracy Violations and Agrees to Pay More Than $3.09 Billion in Criminal and Civil Penalties for “Systemic Breakdown” in Compliance Policies, Procedures, and Processes

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

In any corporate compliance program, chief compliance officers must be mindful that their programs are not guaranteed to maintain consistent levels of funding from year to year.  Factors such as expanding or contracting business operations, declining business conditions, or external events such as recessions or COVID may require various year-to-year adjustments in a compliance program’s staffing levels and internal controls operations.[1]

Even so, it is essential that senior management in any company or financial institution recognize and accept the fact that at all times, the compliance programs in their enterprise must be adequately resourced and empowered to function effectively.[2] What a company’s senior leadership may not do, under any circumstances, is to make decisions that, over time, systematically starve critical compliance programs of resources essential to the effectiveness of those programs.

Continue reading →

FINMA Sanctions Swiss Private Bank Mirabaud & Cie for Serious Violations of Swiss Financial Market Law

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

For generations, the Swiss financial sector has carefully burnished its reputation as the “perfect home for wealth” and a “financial safe haven.”[1]  That reputation, not surprisingly, has led for some time not only to attraction of persons seeking legitimate investment and wealth management opportunities, but to a high degree of money laundering risk.[2]

In recent years, Swiss government authorities have responded to these money laundering risks with necessary changes in its anti-money laundering (AML) laws and general improvements in its legal and regulatory enforcement of those laws.  The Swiss Attorney General’s Office, for example, has demonstrated an increasing commitment to holding the Swiss banking community accountable for criminal violations of Swiss anti-money laundering (AML) laws.[3]  The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), as the supervisor of the Swiss financial sector, has lately shown increased resolve in imposing significant sanctions on banks that fail to comply with AML laws.[4]

The most recent example of FINMA’s resolve took place on September 17, when FINMA disclosed that it had taken strong AML-related measures against a prominent Swiss private bank, Mirabaud & Cie SA.[5]  It stated that in June 2023, it had concluded enforcement proceeding against Mirabaud, finding that Mirabaud breached its AML obligations under Swiss law and “seriously violated provisions of financial market law concerning adequate organisation (governance), risk management and money laundering prevention over a prolonged period.”  It also took the highly unusual steps of confiscating CHF 12.7 million of unlawfully generated profits, opening three proceedings against individuals, and prohibiting Mirabaud from accepting any new clients with increased money-laundering risks until compliance with Swiss financial market law has been restored.

This post will explain the background and basis of FINMA’s actions and provide several observations on its significance.

Continue reading →

The Top 5 Mid-Year Developments in Anti-Money Laundering Enforcement in 2024

by Stephanie Brooker, M. Kendall Day, Ella Capone, Chris Jones, and Ben Schlichting

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Stephanie Brooker, M. Kendall Day, Ella Capone, Chris Jones, and Ben Schlichting. (Photos courtesy of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

In this piece, we analyze some of the most important mid-year trends and developments in AML regulation and enforcement thus far in 2024.  Overall, 2024 has been very active, including key proposed and finalized rules, DOJ policy initiatives, and a notable judicial opinion discussed below.  For a longer version of this piece, please visit Gibson Dunn’s website.

Continue reading →