Tag Archives: Jonathan Rusch

Recent Developments in Switzerland’s Anti-Corruption and Anti-Money Laundering Regime

Photo courtesy of the author

For some time, Switzerland has generally ranked highly in perceptual surveys of corruption.[1] But while some may believe that “generally speaking, Switzerland has a comprehensive anti-corruption and anti-money laundering regulatory regime”[2], that regime has not kept pace with a number of other countries. Indeed, a 2021 report by the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) stated that since the 2017 GRECO report on Switzerland, Switzerland had satisfactorily addressed only five out of the twelve recommendations contained in a 2017 GRECO report.[3]

Since then, however, Switzerland has moved forward on several fronts to bolster its anti-corruption and anti-money laundering (AML) regime. Three recent developments indicate that progress. First, on August 30, the Swiss Federal Council (the governing body of the Swiss government[4]) launched the consultation procedure on a bill to strengthen the country’s AML framework, including the introduction of a beneficial ownership registry.[5] Second, on September 28, the Swiss Attorney General filed an indictment against former Uzbek government official and prolific bribe-taker Gulnara Karimova and a co-conspirator for participation in a criminal organization, money laundering, and related charges.[6] Third, on December 6, the Swiss Attorney General filed an indictment against a leading global commodities trading company, Trafigura Beheer BV (Trafigura), and three individuals for bribery in connection with Trafigura’s activities in the Angolan petroleum industry.[7] This post will summarize and comment on these developments.

Continue reading →

United States v. Calk: The Second Circuit Construes the Bank Bribery Act

by Jonathan Rusch

Photo courtesy of the author

In any U.S. bank’s anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance program, one of the fundamental federal criminal offenses that the program must address is the Bank Bribery Act (Act), 18 U.S.C. § 215.[1] Subsection 215(a) of the Act sets out two separate offenses:

(1) “corruptly giv[ing], offer[ing], or promis[ing] anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution in connection with any business or transaction of such institution”[2]; and

(2) “as an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution, corruptly solicit[ing] or demand[ing] for the benefit of any person, or corruptly accept[ing] or agree[ing] to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction of such institution.”[3]

Maximum penalties for a violation of either offense include 30 years’ imprisonment and a fine not more than $1,000,000 or three times the value of the thing given, offered, promised, solicited, demanded, accepted, or agreed to be accepted, whichever is greater.[4]

Surprisingly — given New York’s status as the world’s leading financial center[5], and the fact that section 215, with periodic revisions, has been in force for more than 75 years — the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had no occasion to construe the scope of section 215 until November 28, in United States v. Calk.[6] This post will summarize and discuss the key elements of Calk.

Continue reading →

Experts Comment on Government Reports on Recent Bank Failures

Editor’s Note: The NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is watching the recent banking crisis and failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and, most recently, First Republic Bank. PCCE is looking to publish additional posts in this area and those interested should contact joseph.facciponti@nyu.edu.

From left to right: Jonathan Rusch, Ijeoma Okoli, and Frederic Krieger (photos courtesy of authors)

Continue reading →

Swiss Court Convicts and Sentences Former Gazprombank Switzerland Executives for Anti-Money Laundering Violations

by Jonathan Rusch

Jonathan Rusch (photo courtesy of author)

Introduction

More than a decade after it ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which obligated all signatory nations to institute a comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory and supervisory regimes for their banking sectors[1], Switzerland has made gradual, though sometimes tortuous, progress toward such an AML regime.

In its 2020 evaluation of Switzerland’s progress in strengthening AML and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) measures, the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force (FATF) acknowledged that “overall, Switzerland’s AML/CFT regime is technically robust and has achieved good results but that it would still benefit from some improvements in order to be fully effective.”[2] In particular, the FATF’s assessment of Switzerland’s AFT/CTF regime found that Switzerland was compliant on factors such as financial institution secrecy laws and recordkeeping and largely compliant on factors such as assessing risk and applying risk-based approach, a money laundering offense, and reporting of suspicious transactions, but only partially compliant on customer due diligence and sanctions.[3]

Continue reading →