Tag Archives: Anand Sithian

Congress to Include Significant Expansion of Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements for U.S. Companies and Non-U.S. Companies Registered to Do Business in the United States as a Part of the 2021 NDAA

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel M. Fiorill, Karen R. King,  Anand Sithian, and Joshua R. Thompson

As has been widely reported[1] and announced in statements by members of both the House and Senate,[2] Congress has included a significant expansion of beneficial ownership disclosure requirements for companies in the United States as a part of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (the “2021 NDAA”), a spending bill that is expected to pass by the end of the year. The most recent version of the 2021 NDAA reported out of conference to the House last week includes new beneficial ownership (defined for purposes of the 2021 NDAA as those individuals who own 25 percent or more of the ownership interests of a company and/or who exercise “substantial control” over a company) reporting requirements for companies that closely track the Corporate Transparency Act of 2019,[3] which passed the House in October 2019, although certain changes were made to make the disclosure provisions somewhat more business-friendly. Nonetheless, if the 2021 NDAA is passed and signed into law in its current form,[4] the law would impose new beneficial ownership disclosure requirements on many U.S. companies—and non-U.S. companies that are registered to do business in the United States (collectively, “reporting companies”)—that previously had not been required to disclose their beneficial owners. Continue reading →

FinCEN Imposes Its First Penalty on a Bank Compliance Officer for $450,000 for Failing to Prevent AML Violations

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel Fiorill, Karen R. King, Justin D. Lerer, Anand Sithian, and Avery Medjuck

On March 4, 2020, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a consent order assessing a $450,000 civil money penalty against Michael LaFontaine, a former Chief Operational Risk Officer at U.S. Bank NA (“U.S. Bank”), for his alleged failure to prevent Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (“BSA/AML”) violations that took place during his tenure.[1] This action—which follows U.S. Bank’s 2018 BSA/AML-related resolution with FinCEN, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the Federal Reserve for a combined $613 million in financial penalties—marks the first time FinCEN has imposed a penalty on a bank compliance officer for his role in failing to prevent BSA/AML compliance program failures.[2] Continue reading →

DOJ Announces Revised Export Control and Sanctions Enforcement Policy for Companies, Including Financial Institutions

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Richard S. Elliott, Karen R. King, and Anand Sithian

On December 13, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) National Security Division (“NSD”) announced a new policy designed to encourage business organizations to make voluntary self-disclosures (“VSDs”) to the DOJ in connection with potentially willful export control and economic sanctions violations (the “Revised VSD Policy”).[1] The policy, which only applies to voluntary self-disclosures to NSD’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (“CES”), revises a 2016 DOJ policy on the same topic. As the policy notes, in the export control and sanctions context, criminal violations require proof of willfulness, defined as knowledge that the conduct violated the law.[2] Continue reading →

Court Upholds SEC Authority and Finds Broker-Dealer Liable for Thousands of Suspicious Activity Reporting Violations

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, David S. Huntington, Brad S. Karp, Raphael M. Russo, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel M. Fiorill, Karen R. King, Anand Sithian, and Katherine S. Stewart

Decision Provides Rare Judicial Guidance on SAR Filing Requirements

On December 11, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) obtained a victory in its enforcement action against Alpine Securities Corporation, a broker that cleared transactions for microcap securities that were allegedly used in manipulative schemes to harm investors.[1] Judge Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 100-page opinion partially granting the SEC’s motion for summary judgment and finding Alpine liable for thousands of violations of its obligation to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).[2]

Because most SAR-related enforcement actions are resolved without litigation, this decision is a rare instance of a court’s detailed examination of SAR filing requirements.  The decision began by rejecting—for a second time[3]—Alpine’s argument that the SEC lacks authority to pursue SAR violations.  The court then engaged in a number of line-drawing exercises, finding that various pieces of information, as a matter of law, triggered Alpine’s SAR filing obligations and should have been included in the SAR narratives.  This mode of analysis, which applies the SAR rules under the traditional summary judgment standard, may appear to contrast with regulatory guidance recognizing that SARs involve subjective, discretionary judgments.[4]

Although the decision has particular relevance in the microcap context, all broker-dealers—and potentially other entities subject to SAR filing requirements—may wish to review the court’s reasoning for insight on a number of SAR issues, including the adequacy of SAR narratives and the inclusion of “red flag” information. Among other cautions, the decision illustrates the dangers of relying on SAR “template narratives”[5] that lack adequate detail.

More broadly, the SEC’s action against Alpine is another indicator of heightened federal interest in ensuring broker-dealer compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements. For example, last month the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York brought the first-ever criminal BSA charge against a broker-dealer, noting that this charge “makes clear that all actors governed by the Bank Secrecy Act—not only banks—must uphold their obligations.”[6] Continue reading →