by David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Stephanie Brown-Cripps, Nathaniel Balk, Nathalie Kupfer, and Rosie Jiang
![Photos of authors](https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wp.nyu.edu/dist/4/3828/files/2024/02/Capture.jpg)
Top (left to right): David Sewell, Timothy Clark, and Stephanie Brown-Cripps
Bottom (left to right): Nathaniel Balk, Nathalie Kupfer, and Rosie Jiang
(Photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)
On February 13, 2024, the U.S Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a proposed rule to extend anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations to certain types of investment advisers operating in the United States (Proposed Rule).[1] The agency simultaneously released a “2024 Investment Adviser Risk Assessment” (Risk Assessment), its first comprehensive effort to describe and measure “illicit finance threats involving investment advisers.”[2]
FinCEN’s release marks the latest development in a decades-old debate about whether investment advisers should be subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the attendant AML/CFT requirements that have long been applied to banks, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions. If adopted in the current (or a similar) form, the Proposed Rule would bring this long-running debate to a close once and for all.
Below, we briefly summarize the Proposed Rule, including its scope, requirements and potential implications, and highlight open questions and next steps.
Continue reading →