Category Archives: U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury)

What Could a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” Mean in Practice?

by Stephen T. Gannon and Daniel M. Payne

Photos of the authors

Stephen T. Gannon and Daniel M. Payne (photos courtesy of authors)

The United States is no stranger to stockpiling strategic assets to serve important national interests. The U.S. strategic gold reserve provides financial stability and supports the value of the U.S. dollar. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, in contrast, protects the U.S. from emergencies and economic shocks in the oil industry, on which much of the modern economy depends. Now, the U.S. is strongly considering a new strategic reserve: the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (“SBR”), in which billions of dollars’ worth of the digital currency Bitcoin would be securely stored as a new financial hedge and support for the U.S. dollar.

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 →

The CFIUS Colossus: CFIUS’s Expanding Authority Changes the Risk Calculus for M&A Transactions

by Stephenie Gosnell Handler, Michelle Weinbaum, Mason Gauch, and Chris Mullen

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Stephenie Gosnell Handler, Mason Gauch, and Chris Mullen. (Photos courtesy of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

A new final rule from the U.S. Department of the Treasury will expand CFIUS’s authority to request information from parties related to a transaction, increases potential penalty amounts, and expedites mitigation agreement negotiations in certain situations. With the exception of modifying the time frame within which parties are required to respond to mitigation agreement proposals, CFIUS largely adopted the language of its April 2024 proposed rule.

On November 18, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or “the Committee”) issued a final rule largely codifying a rule proposed in April 2024, with only a handful of small, yet meaningful, changes. As noted in the accompanying press release, the final rule: Continue reading →

Long-Awaited U.S. Outbound Investment Regime Published, Will Become Effective January 2, 2025

by Chase Kaniecki, Samuel H. Chang, B.J. Altvater, and Ryan Brown

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Chase Kaniecki, Samuel H. Chang, B.J. Altvater, and Ryan Brown (Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

On October 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) issued a long-awaited Final Rule (the “Final Rule”) implementing the U.S. Outbound Investment Security Program (the “Program”).[1]  Under the Program, effective January 2, 2025, U.S. persons will be prohibited from engaging in, or required to notify Treasury regarding, a broad range of transactions involving entities engaged in certain activities relating to semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems in “countries of concern” (presently limited to China, Hong Kong, and Macau). 

Continue reading →

Treasury’s Report on AI (Part 2) – Managing AI-Specific Cybersecurity Risks in the Financial Sector

by Avi Gesser, Erez Liebermann, Matt Kelly, Jackie Dorward, and Joshua A. Goland

Photos of authors.

Top: Avi Gesser, Erez Liebermann, and Matt Kelly. Bottom: Jackie Dorward and Joshua A. Goland (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

This is the second post in the two-part Debevoise Data Blog series covering the U.S. Treasury Department’s report on Managing Artificial Intelligence-Specific Cybersecurity Risks in the Financial Services Sector (the “Report”).

In Part 1, we addressed the Report’s coverage of the state of AI regulation and best practices recommendations for AI risk management and governance. In Part 2, we review the Report’s assessment of AI-enhanced cybersecurity risks, as well as the risks of attacks against AI systems, and offer guidance on how financial institutions can respond to both types of risks.

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 →

Biden Administration Releases Proposed Rule on Outbound Investments in China

by Paul D. Marquardt and Kendall Howell

Photos of authors

From left to right: Paul D. Marquardt and Kendall Howell (Photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

The Biden administration released its proposed rule that would establish a regulatory framework for outbound investments in China, following its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking released last August.

On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking that would impose controls on outbound investments in China (the Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule follows Treasury’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (the ANPRM) released in August 2023 (discussed in this client update) and implements the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14105 (the Executive Order), which proposed a high-level framework to mitigate the risks to U.S. national security interests stemming from U.S. outbound investments in “countries of concern” (currently only China). Like the Executive Order and ANPRM, the Proposed Rule reflects an effort by the Biden administration to adopt a “narrow and targeted” program and is in large part directed at the “intangible benefits” of U.S. investment (e.g., management expertise, prestige, and know-how), rather than capital alone.[1]

Continue reading →

Treasury and FSOC Sharpen Focus on Risks of AI in the Financial Sector

by Alison M. Hashmall, David Sewell, Beth George, Andrew Dockham, Megan M. Kayo and Nathaniel Balk

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Alison M. Hashmall, David Sewell and Beth George. Bottom Left to Right: Andrew Dockham, Megan M. Kayo and Nathaniel Balk. (Photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)

On June 6-7, 2024, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC or the Council) cosponsored a conference on AI and financial stability with the Brookings Institution (the FSOC Conference).  The conference was billed as “an opportunity for the public and private sectors to convene to discuss potential systemic risks posed by AI in financial services, to explore the balance between encouraging innovation and mitigating risks, and to share insights on effective oversight of AI-related risks to financial stability.” The FSOC Conference featured noteworthy speeches by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen (who chairs the Council), as well as Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu.  And in a further sign of increased regulatory focus on AI in the financial industry, the Treasury Department also released a request for information on the Uses, Opportunities, and Risk of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Financial Services Sector (the AI RFI) while the conference was happening – its most recent, and most comprehensive, effort to understand how AI is being used in the financial industry.

In this blog post, we first summarize the key questions raised and topics addressed in the AI RFI.  We then summarize the key takeaways from FSOC’s conference on AI and discuss how these developments fit within the broader context of actions taken by the federal financial regulators in the AI space. Lastly, we lay out takeaways and the path ahead for financial institutions as they continue to navigate the rapid development of AI technology.

Continue reading →

Department of Commerce, Department of the Treasury, and Department of Justice Tri-Seal Compliance Note: Obligations of foreign-based persons to comply with U.S. sanctions and export control laws

by the Department of Commerce, Department of the Treasury, and Department of Justice

Photos of authors

OVERVIEW

Today’s increasingly interconnected global marketplace offers unprecedented opportunities for companies around the world to trade with the United States and one another, contributing to economic growth. At the same time, malign regimes and other bad actors may attempt to misuse the commercial and financial channels that facilitate foreign trade to acquire goods, technology, and services that risk undermining U.S. national security and foreign policy and that challenge global peace and prosperity. In response to such risks, the United States has put in place robust sanctions and export controls to restrict the ability of sanctioned actors to misuse the U.S. financial and commercial system in advance of malign activities.

These measures can create legal exposure not only for U.S. persons, but also for non-U.S. companies who continue to engage with sanctioned jurisdictions or persons in violation of applicable laws. To mitigate the risks of non-compliance, companies outside of the United States should be aware of how their activities may implicate U.S. sanctions and export control laws. This Note highlights the applicability of U.S. sanctions and export control laws to persons and entities located abroad, as well as the enforcement mechanisms that are available for the U.S. government to hold non-U.S. persons accountable for violations of such laws, including criminal prosecution. It further provides an overview of compliance considerations for non-U.S. companies and compliance measures to help mitigate their risk.

Continue reading →