Category Archives: Anti-Money Laundering (AML)

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

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

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 →

FinCEN Adopts Rule Extending AML/CFT Requirements to RIAs and ERAs, Further Increasing Regulatory Obligations on Investment Advisers

by David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Ivet Bell, David Nicolardi, and Nathaniel Balk

Left to Right: David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Ivet Bell, David Nicolardi, and Nathaniel Balk (photos courtesy of authors)

On August 28, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) adopted a final rule that extends anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations to certain types of investment advisers (the Final Rule), and delegates to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the authority to examine investment advisers’ compliance with these obligations.[1] The Final Rule ends a long-running debate over whether to subject investment advisers to AML/CFT obligations after multiple prior proposals to do so had stalled.

The Final Rule imports standards and requirements that will be familiar to investment advisers affiliated with financial institutions already subject to AML/CFT obligations, but may be new to smaller and independent investment advisers. For these entities, the compliance uplift required could be substantial.

Continue reading →

Risks of Cross Border Operations: Chiquita Brands International Found Liable for Financing Terrorism

by Timothy Harkness, Peter Linken, Scott Eisman, and Maylin Meisenheimer

From left to right: Timothy Harkness, Peter Linken, Scott Eisman and Maylin Meisenheimer (Photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)

Doing business in conflict zones has always been complicated. Increased litigation has compounded those risks in recent years. A June 2024 federal jury verdict against Chiquita Brands International illustrates the changing legal landscape. The jury in Florida found Chiquita liable for financing Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (“AUC”), a Colombian paramilitary group, and awarded a bellwether group of plaintiffs $38.3 million in damages. A second bellwether trial against Chiquita is scheduled for later this year, and thousands of related claims against Chiquita remain pending. Although the Chiquita litigation has spanned almost two decades, this jury verdict represents the first liability determination and paves the way for the second bellwether trial and eventual resolution of all pending claims. As each plaintiff was awarded around $2 million, Chiquita could be facing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as the broader litigation includes vastly more victims.

The Chiquita verdict is a signal to corporations that U.S. courts may be more willing to find them liable for actions that occurred abroad and that plaintiffs may increasingly choose to file these claims in U.S. courts. In Chiquita, the alleged actions took place in Colombia and the claims at issue were brought under Colombian law, but this is just one example among many. In Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, for example, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly pleaded that Lebanese Canadian Bank had aided and abetted acts of international terrorism under the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”) by alleging that the bank had processed transactions in Lebanon for individuals closely affiliated with Hezbollah. As companies weigh the risks of doing business abroad and how best to structure their operations, this verdict should be at the forefront of their minds.

Continue reading →

FinCEN Proposes Comprehensive Updates to AML/CFT Program Rules

by David Sewell and Nathaniel Balk

From left to right: David Sewell and Nathaniel Balk. (Photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a proposed rule (the Proposed Rule) to update anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations to reflect revisions to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) contained in the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act).[1]

FinCEN’s release marks the latest step in the ongoing implementation of the AML Act, which adopted the most significant revisions to the U.S. AML/CFT framework since the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. Although the Proposed Rule in large part clarifies, streamlines, and updates existing regulations, it includes several provisions that materially change AML/CFT compliance obligations for many financial institutions, including most notably a mandatory risk assessment process.

Below, we briefly summarize the Proposed Rule, including its scope, requirements, and potential implications, and highlight open questions and next steps.

Continue reading →

FinCEN and SEC Move Closer to New AML Requirements for Investment Advisers & ERAs

by Joel M. Cohen, Claudette Druehl, Marietou Diouf, Tami Stark, Prat Vallabhaneni, and Robert DeNault

Top: Joel M. Cohen, Claudette Druehl, and Marietou Diouf
Bottom: Tami Stark, Prat Vallabhaneni, and Robert DeNault
(Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On May 13, 2024, FinCEN and the SEC jointly proposed a new rule that would require SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers to maintain written customer identification programs (CIPs). The new rule supplements a proposal in February to impose requirements on investment advisers similar to those that have existed for broker-dealers since 2001, as a means to address illicit finance and national security threats in the asset management industry.

For investment advisers who do not currently have an AML/CFT program, this compliance obligation will create a large shift in the way they operate. This will require significant legal time and attention, but it will be time well spent considering potential regulatory exposure and likely indemnification obligations which flow through commercial agreements in favor of counterparties.

Continue reading →

Crypto Experts React to Recent SDNY Ethereum Fraud Indictment

The NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is following the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York’s recent indictment of two individuals for allegedly attacking and stealing $25 million from the Ethereum blockchain. The indictment in the case, United States v. Peraire-Bueno, 24 Cr. 293 (SDNY), is available here. Below, several crypto experts and former prosecutors provide their reactions to the case.

Left to right: Maria Vullo, Daniel Payne, Elizabeth Roper, Usman Sheikh, Justin Herring, and Robertson Park (photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

New U.S. Law Extends Statute of Limitations for Sanctions Violations and Enhances Regulatory and Enforcement Focus on National Security Priorities

by Anthony Lewis, Eric Kadel Jr., Sharon Cohen Levin, Craig Jones, Adam Szubin, Amanda Houle, and Bailey Springer

Top: Anthony Lewis, Eric Kadel Jr., and Sharon Cohen Levin
Bottom: Craig Jones, Adam Szubin, and Amanda Houle
(Photos courtesy of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP)

Statute Doubles the Statute of Limitations for Sanctions Violations, Expands the Scope of Sanctions Programs, and Focuses on China’s Technology Procurement, Iranian Petroleum Trafficking, and Fentanyl Production

Summary

On April 24, President Biden signed into law H.R. 815, a sweeping national security legislative package that—in addition to providing foreign aid funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan—includes the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which contains a number of provisions implementing the Biden administration’s national security priorities. As summarized below, provisions of the Act align with U.S. authorities’ continued focus on China and emphasis on sanctions enforcement. In particular, the Act:

Doubles the statute of limitations for civil and criminal violations of U.S. sanctions programs from five to 10 years—raising questions about retroactive application of the statute and whether authorities will amend current rules on corporate record-keeping practices;
Requires additional agency reports to Congress, reflecting a focus on U.S. investments in, and supply-chain contributions to, the development of sensitive technologies used by China—a topic that has likewise been the recent focus of the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce;
Targets the Chinese government’s alleged evasion of U.S. sanctions on Iranian petroleum products and involvement in related financial transactions by directing the imposition of sanctions; and
Directs the President to impose sanctions aimed at curbing China’s alleged involvement in fentanyl trafficking and calls for forthcoming guidance for financial institutions in filing related SARs.

Continue reading →

Blockchain Analytics: A Reliable Use of Artificial Intelligence for Crime Detection and Legal Compliance

by Sujit Raman and Thomas Armstrong

From left to right: Sujit Raman and Thomas Armstrong. (Photos courtesy of authors).

Everyone these days is talking about artificial intelligence and how to use it responsibly. Among law enforcement and compliance professionals, discussions around the responsible use of AI are nothing new. Even so, recent advances in machine learning have turbocharged AI’s transformative potential in detecting, preventing, and—in a particular sense—even predicting illicit activity. These advances are especially notable in the field of blockchain analytics: the process of associating digital asset wallets to real-world entities.

In a recent, pathbreaking opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss rejected a criminal defendant’s challenge to the government’s evidentiary use of blockchain analytics to link him to illicit financial activity.[1] Many courts—including, just a few days ago, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts[2]—have relied on the validity of blockchain analytics when taking pre-trial actions like issuing seizure orders and authorizing arrest warrants; Judge Moss’s opinion is the first trial court examination of this powerful analytic capability. Taken together, this growing body of legal authority forcefully affirms the reliability—and therefore admissibility in court—of evidence derived from such analytics.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Declares the Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional

by Gina Parlovecchio, Brad Resnikoff, Matthew Bisanz, and Daisy Gray

From left to right: Gina Parlovecchio, Brad Resnikoff, Matthew Bisanz, and Daisy Gray (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown LLP).

On March 1, 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declared the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional, and suspended its enforcement against the plaintiffs in that case. While most companies remain subject to its requirements for now, this decision may presage more broadly applicable relief through subsequent judicial or administrative action.

The CTA requires many entities conducting business in the United States to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a law enforcement arm of the US Department of Treasury. The court, in enjoining the CTA’s enforcement against the plaintiffs, found that the CTA exceeds constitutional limits on Congress’s power. In the wake of the decision, FinCEN announced that it intends to respect the court’s decision and will not enforce the CTA beneficial ownership requirements against the plaintiffs, but its silence as to other parties implies that everyone else must continue to comply.

In this Legal Update, we discuss the case, National Small Business Association, et al. v. Yellen, FinCEN’s response, and our predictions for what will come next.

Continue reading →