Category Archives: Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)

The Federal Financial Institution Regulators’ New Guidance on Filing Suspicious Activity Reports

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Under the Bank Secrecy Act and regulations thereunder, financial institutions have long been required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) on a wide range of possible criminal activities with federal financial institution regulators.  Over the past two decades, criminal and civil enforcement authorities have imposed BSA-related financial penalties in numerous cases for failure to file or untimely filing SARs.[1]  At the same time, many in the financial sector have complained about the burdensomeness and questioned the value of SAR preparation.[2]

On October 9, the five federal financial institutions regulators (i.e., the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) jointly issued a document titled “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements” (SAR FAQs).[3]  The SAR FAQs stated that “[t]he answers to these FAQs clarify regulatory requirements related to SARs to assist financial institutions with their compliance obligations while enabling institutions to focus resources on activities that produce the greatest value to law enforcement agencies and other authorized government users of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting.”[4]

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces Policy Ending “Regulation by Prosecution” of Digital Assets

by Joel Cohen, Brent Wible, Ladan Stewart, Marietou Diouf, Robert Denault, and Elisha Mvundura 

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Joel Cohen, Brent Wible and Ladan Stewart, Bottom left to right: Marietou Diouf, Robert Denault and Elisha Mvundura (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP).

On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum instructing federal prosecutors to cease pursuing “litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets,” noting that regulators and not prosecutors will “do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.”[1]  Under the new policy, the Justice Department will prioritize investigations and prosecutions involving individuals who defraud investors in digital assets or who use digital assets in furtherance of other crimes, including offenses related to terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.  The memorandum indicates that the Justice Department plans to close all ongoing investigations that are inconsistent with the new policy.

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 →

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 →

“Operation Chokepoint 2.0”: De-Banking Policies and the Adverse Use of Reputational Risk in Bank Supervision

by Stephen T. Gannon, Max Bonici, Elizabeth Lan Davis, and Kristal Rovira

Photos of the authors

Left to Right: Stephen T. Gannon, Max Bonici, Elizabeth Lan Davis, and Kristal Rovira (photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

How subjective supervisory standards suppressed innovation and damaged innovators.

“The power to regulate—in addition to the power to tax—is the power to destroy.”

Peter Wallison, Judicial Fortitude (2018)

As we have previously noted, we expect that the second Trump Administration will be significantly more favorable to crypto than the Biden Administration, especially with the recent appointment of David Sacks as the Administration’s “Crypto Czar.” We anticipate that in short order the new Administration will address “de-banking,” a regulatory practice that has vexed the digital asset industry—and banking in general—over the last several years. In this context, “de-banking” means canceling banking services to crypto entities and individuals associated with them or crypto activities. It is a practice that has been sharply criticized and has become even less comprehensible as the digital asset industry has matured and embraced (indeed, has sought) reasonable regulation. In the last several days the attention paid to this issue has increased sharply as a result of comments by Marc Andreessen on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Regrettably, the de-banking problem is not new. De-banking crypto is simply the latest variation of regulators using vague and amorphous standards to supervise bank conduct through the subjective lens of what the federal banking agencies call “reputational risk.”

Below we discuss how we got here and some ways forward.

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 →

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 →

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

Photos of authors

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 →

FinCEN Proposes Comprehensive Updates to AML/CFT Program Rules

by David Sewell and Nathaniel Balk

photos of the authors

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 →