Category Archives: Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)

SEC’s Newest Task Force Takes Cross-Border Aim

by Jina L. Choi, Gabriela Li, David Woodcock, and Emily Rumble

photos of authors

From left to right: Jina L. Choi, Gabriela Li, David Woodcock, and Emily Rumble (photos courtesy of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

In line with the Trump Administration’s America First Investment Policy and perhaps in response to entreaties from Congress and state regulators to protect the U.S. capital markets from unscrupulous foreign actors, the SEC announced the formation of a Cross-Border Task Force within its Division of Enforcement on September 5, 2025.[1] The task force will focus on investigating foreign-based issuers for potential market manipulation, such as pump-and-dump and ramp-and-dump schemes, and will increase scrutiny of gatekeepers, particularly auditors and underwriters, who help foreign issuers access the U.S. capital markets. The statement notably singles out China as a jurisdiction where governmental control and other factors pose unique investor risks.

Continue reading →

Monetary Authority of Singapore Imposes Financial Penalties, Prohibition Orders, and Reprimands for Anti-Money Laundering Breaches

by Jonathan J. Rusch

Photo of the author

Jonathan J. Rusch (photo courtesy of the author)

Since 2023, when Singapore Police arrested 10 people connected with Singapore’s largest-ever case of money laundering (involving S$3 billion in cash and assets)[1], the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been conducting supervisory examinations against pertinent financial institutions with a nexus to persons of interest in that case and certain employees of those financial institutions.

On July 4, the MAS announced regulatory actions against nine financial institutions and prohibition orders and reprimands against 18 executives and managers of those institutions for failure to comply with MAS’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements.[2]  This post will summarize those actions and identify certain lessons to be learned for AML/CFT compliance.

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 →

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 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 →

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

Photos of the authors

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 →

FinCEN Proposes Highly Anticipated Investment Adviser AML/CFT Rule

by David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Stephanie Brown-Cripps, Nathaniel Balk, Nathalie Kupfer, and Rosie Jiang

Photos of authors

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 →