Category Archives: Countering the Financing of Terrorism

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 →

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

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

photos of the authors

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

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 →

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

Photos of the authors

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 →

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 →

Creating A European Union-Wide Anti-Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism Regime (Part II): Changes in Anti-Money Laundering Rules

by Jonathan J. Rusch

Photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

As part of its continuing efforts to strengthen the capacity and capability of the European Union (EU) to combat money laundering and terrorism financing[1], on January 18, 2024 the Council of the European Union announced that it and the European Parliament had found a provisional agreement on parts of the anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) package to protect EU citizens and the EU’s financial system.

This provisional agreement is intended to accomplish two fundamental objectives: (1) to transfer all AML/CFT rules applying to the private sector to a new regulation; and (2) in doing so, for the first time to make those rules more stringent and harmonize them “exhaustively”, in order to close possible loopholes that criminals use to launder illicit proceeds or finance terrorist activities through the financial system.[2]

The first post in this series covered the provisional agreement relating to the creation and operation of a new EU-wide anti-money laundering authority (AMLA).[3]  This post will summarize and comment on the extensive and detailed provisions of this provisional agreement with regard to two elements: (1) the new AML regulation[4]; and (2) a new AML/CFT directive (to be designated by the EU as the “Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive”) that would establish the mechanisms that EU Member States should put in place for AML/CFT purposes and repeal the EU’s 2015 Fourth AML Directive.[5]

Continue reading →

Creating A European Union-Wide Anti-Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism Regime (Part I): The Anti-Money Laundering Authority

by Jonathan J. Rusch

Photos of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Introduction

Since 2018, when the then-European Commissioner for Justice Věra Jourová described the Danske Bank money-laundering catastrophe[1] as “the biggest scandal in Europe”[2], the European Commission (EC), as the politically independent executive arm of the European Union (EU)[3], has worked assiduously to repair the substantial defects in Europe’s anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) mechanisms.

Continue reading →

Know Your Customer, But Also Yourself: A Fresh Look at Sanctions & Export Controls Risk Assessments in the Era of the “New FCPA”

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Brent Carlson, Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of the authors)

We have written recently about liability pitfalls caused by misperceived “loopholes” in sanctions and export controls regimes.[1] We have also written about the meaning and practical implications of the U.S. government’s emphasis on sanctions enforcement as the “new FCPA,” discussing how to identify and respond to circumstances posing a high probability of sanctions or export controls evasion.[2]

Having identified these new priority issues, what is the first step towards a solution? Risk assessments are the starting point.[3] Assess your own risk, but do so in an updated—and more effective—manner that reflects the evolving economic sanctions and export controls enforcement environment. Here are some suggestions to help with the assessment.

Continue reading →

DOJ, BIS and OFAC Release Guidance on Voluntary Self-Disclosures

By Eric J. Kadel, Sharon Cohen Levin, Anthony J. Lewis, Shari D. Leventhal, and Edoardo Saravalle

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Eric J. Kadel, Sharon Cohen Levin, Anthony J. Lewis, Shari D. Leventhal, and Edoardo Saravalle (Photos courtesy of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP)

DOJ, BIS and OFAC Issue Joint Guidance on Policies Relating to Voluntary Self-Disclosures of Potential Violations of Sanctions, Export Controls and Other National Security Laws

Summary

On July 26, 2023, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Treasury released a Tri-Seal Compliance Note describing voluntary self-disclosure and whistleblower policies applicable to U.S. sanctions, export controls and other national security laws.  The release does not impose new obligations, but provides an overview that (i) clarifies the salient aspects of the agencies’ voluntary self-disclosure policies (particularly following recent updates to these policies), (ii) suggests the differences between each agency’s approach to voluntary self-disclosures (including with respect to the mitigation of civil or criminal liability) and (iii) underscores the agencies’ goal of shifting the private sector’s risk calculus toward greater voluntary self-disclosures.

Continue reading →

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Terrorism Act Claims Against Social Media Platforms Used By ISIS

by Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Mark E. McDonald, Leila Mgaloblishvili, Miranda Herzog, Nowell D. Bamberger, Chase D. Kaniecki, and Rathna Ramamurthi

Photos of the authors

From top left to right: Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Mark E. McDonald, Leila Mgaloblishvili, and Miranda Herzog.
From bottom left to right: Nowell D. Bamberger, Chase D. Kaniecki, and Rathna Ramamurthi.
(Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, et al.,[1] unanimously rejecting claims against Twitter, Facebook and Google (as the owner of YouTube) for allegedly aiding and abetting ISIS in its commission of terrorist attacks.  Plaintiffs, who were injured in an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul in 2017, alleged that Twitter, Facebook and Google were liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2), because they allegedly knowingly allowed ISIS to use their social media platforms and “recommendation” algorithm tools, profited from advertising revenue on ISIS content, and failed to take sufficient steps to remove ISIS-affiliated accounts.  The Supreme Court held that these allegations were insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability under JASTA, in a decision that substantially clarifies the circumstances under which companies in the U.S. who offer widely-available and generalized services may be liable for complicity in terrorist attacks.

Continue reading →