Category Archives: Banking

Removing Implicit Bank Subsidies to Make the Financial System Fairer

by Sebastian Schich 

The views expressed within this post are those of the author alone and do not represent those of the OECD or its member countries.

A decade after the global financial crisis, most of the financial regulatory reform package to make the system stabler and fairer has been completed. The agenda is is now changing to evaluation of reform effects. This post draws on a recent article on implicit bank debt guarantees [1] and asks whether the progress in limiting them has made the financial system fairer.

The financial regulatory reform, designed and subsequently rolled out over the past decade following the global financial crisis, is explicitly described as an attempt to make the international financial system fairer. In defining what is involved in this goal, the Financial Stability Board (FSB),[2] an international body set up in April 2009 to monitor and make recommendations about the global financial system, refers to large banks at the centre of the financial system that did not internalize the social costs that their excessive risk-taking created. Gains of risk-taking activities were privatized and losses socialized. A fairer system involves funding conditions that are more closely aligned with the riskiness of the entities. In other words, there would be no room for implicit bank debt guarantees. Continue reading

AML Information Sharing in a Technology-Enabled and Privacy-Conscious World

by Kevin Petrasic, Paul Saltzman, Jonah Anderson, Jeremy Kuester, John Wagner, Rebecca Copcutt, and John Timmons

Financial firms play an integral role in preventing, identifying, investigating and reporting criminal activity, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and many other finance-related crimes. It is a critical role that depends on financial firms having the information they need to identify and report potentially suspicious activity and provide other relevant information to law enforcement. However, there are significant barriers to information sharing throughout the US anti-money laundering (“AML”) regime. These barriers limit the effectiveness of AML information sharing within a financial institution, among financial institutions, and between financial institutions and law enforcement.

Much has changed in the 17 years following the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Patriot Act”), which, among other things, sought to enable greater information sharing among law enforcement, regulators and financial institutions regarding AML risks. Of note, Section 314(a) of the Patriot Act and its implementing regulations (“Section 314(a)”) enables federal, state, local and European Union law enforcement agencies to reach out to US financial institutions through the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) to locate accounts and transactions of persons that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. Section 314(b) of the Patriot Act and its implementing regulations (“Section 314(b)”) provides a limited safe harbor for financial institutions to share information with one another in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist activities. Continue reading

FinCEN and Federal Financial Institution Supervisory Agencies Issue Joint Statement on Innovative Efforts to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

by Jonathan J. Rusch

FinCEN and Federal Financial Institution Supervisory Agencies Issue Joint Statement on Innovative Efforts to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

On December 3, 2018, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and the four federal financial institution supervisory agencies[1] (“the agencies”) issued a joint statement (“Joint Statement”) encouraging banks (i.e., banks, savings associations, credit unions, and foreign banks) “to consider, evaluate, and, where appropriate, responsibly implement innovative approaches to meet their Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance obligations, in order to further strengthen the financial system against illicit financial activity.”[2] Continue reading

Perspectives on Regulating Systemic Risk

by Steven L. Schwarcz

Whether the macroprudential regulation enacted to protect the stability of the financial system is sufficient to prevent another crisis is uncertain. Although much of that regulation represents good faith and, in many cases, highly thoughtful efforts to control systemic risk, its primary focus is on banks and other systemically important financial institutions (“SIFI”s). This entity-based approach may be too narrow because it largely ignores other critical elements of the system, such as financial markets.

Furthermore, influenced by political and media pressure to assign blame for the financial crisis, some of the entity-based regulation is itself imperfect. A major focus of that regulation, for example, is on controlling morally hazardous risk-taking by SIFIs that deem themselves “too big to fail” (“TBTF”). Capital requirements epitomize this approach, protecting SIFIs against losses by requiring them to hold minimum levels of capital. However, the ability of capital requirements to control systemic risk is unclear. The cost of capital requirements is also uncertain; some argue they impose no public costs, others argue to the contrary. Continue reading

New Supervisory Rating System for Large Banking Organizations

by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Federal Reserve Establishes a New Rating System for the Supervision of Large Financial Institutions

Summary

On November 2, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”) issued a final rule (the “Final Rule”) that establishes a new rating system for the supervision of large financial institutions (“LFIs”). The LFI rating system applies to all bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more; all non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more; and all U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.[1] The LFI rating system is designed to align with the FRB’s existing supervisory program for LFIs,[2] enhance the clarity and consistency of supervisory assessments, and provide greater transparency regarding the consequences of a given rating. For LFIs, the new rating system replaces the RFI/C(D) rating system currently used by the FRB for holding companies of all sizes.[3] Continue reading

New York Office Of The Attorney General Publishes Report On Virtual Currency Platforms And Their Potential Risks

by Arthur S. Long, Carl E. Kennedy, and Jeffrey L. Steiner

This post reviews the New York State Office of the Attorney General’s (the “OAG”) Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative Report (the “Report”), which was published on September 18, 2018.[1]  The publication of the OAG’s 42-page Report brings to a close its six-month fact-finding inquiry of several virtual currency platforms.[2]  The OAG sent out detailed letters and questionnaires to a number of virtual currency platforms seeking information from the platforms across a wide-range of issues, including trading operations, fees charged to customers, the existence of robust policies and procedures, and the use of risk controls.  Continue reading

UK Law Commission Proposes Reforms to Suspicious Activity Reports for Money Laundering

by Karolos Seeger, Andrew Lee, and Natasha McCarthy

The Law Commission has published an extensive consultation paper examining the UK’s current Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) regime for reporting suspected money laundering to the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) and outlining provisional reform proposals.[1] The consultation runs until 5 October 2018, after which the Law Commission will present its final recommendations to the Government. This is the first step in a process that could result in significant changes to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”), affecting all organisations that deal with money laundering issues.

We summarise below the key views expressed and changes proposed in the consultation paper, and analyse the likely practical effect if the reforms are implemented. Continue reading

“Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” is Enacted

by Samuel R. Woodall III, Mitchell S. Eitel, Michael T. Escue, C. Andrew Gerlach, Camille L. Orme, Benjamin H. Weiner, and Michael A. Wiseman

Summary

Earlier today, President Trump signed into law the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act,”[1] which provides certain limited amendments to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), as well as certain targeted modifications to other post-financial crisis regulatory requirements.  In addition, the legislation establishes new consumer protections and amends various securities- and investment company-related requirements.  The legislation, which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support, was adopted on May 22, 2018, in the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 258 to 159, and in the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 67 to 31, on March 14, 2018.

The legislation preserves the fundamental elements of the post-Dodd-Frank regulatory framework, but it includes modifications that will result in some meaningful regulatory relief for smaller and certain regional banking organizations. Continue reading

Banking Regulators’ Examination Authority Does Not Override Attorney-Client Privilege

by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Covington & Burling LLP, DavisPolk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

MEMORANDUM[1]

RE: Bank Regulators’ Legal Authority to Compel the Production of Material That Is Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege

I. Introduction

The attorney-client privilege (the “Privilege”) is deeply enshrined in the common law.[2] In protecting the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients, the Privilege both bars the admission of such communications as evidence in legal proceedings and insulates the communications from compelled disclosure by government authorities. Accordingly, absent an explicit exception, neither courts nor government authorities may require a client or the client’s lawyer to produce or reveal privileged information. Continue reading

FinCEN Releases Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Customer Due Diligence and Beneficial Ownership Requirements

by David S. Cohen, Franca Harris Gutierrez, Sharon Cohen Levin, Jeremy Dresner and Michael Romais

Last week the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued much-anticipated Frequently Asked Questions (PDF: 387 KB) (FAQs) that provide additional guidance to financial institutions relating to the implementation of the new Customer Due Diligence Rule (CDD Rule), set to go into effect on May 11, 2018.[1] In general, the FAQs clarify certain issues that have caused implementation challenges for financial institutions. While FinCEN’s earlier guidance provided a general overview of the CDD Rule—including the purpose of the rule, the institutions to which it is applicable, and some relevant definitions—the new FAQs provide greater detail for financial institutions seeking to comply with the CDD Rule. The FAQs are meant to assist covered financial institutions in understanding the scope of their customer due diligence (CDD) obligations, as well as the rule’s impact on their broader anti-money laundering (AML) compliance. While the guidance is helpful in clarifying some of FinCEN’s expectations, the implementation challenge lies in applying the CDD Rule to a financial institution’s specific products and services.

As financial institutions work to meet the CDD Rule’s fast-approaching May 11 compliance deadline, they should pay special attention to the following key areas summarized below. Continue reading