| |

fincen

The USA is, at the best of times, very good at shouting that it's a leader in combating money laundering but it's all mouth and no trousers, most of the time.

Take, for example, the noise it has made about so-called "beneficial owners" of companies, a misuse of the term that goes back to, at least, 1980s Senate Hearings into the laundering of the proceeds of drugs trafficking and the use of shell and offshore companies. 40 years on, the USA has still done nothing about it and all the signs are that nothing is going to happen soon. ADDENDUM: Comment by Jim Richards.

Here's the irony: FinCEN doesn't need to build and maintain a database at all, especially as the law restricts access to the data it holds, so voiding any KYC benefit it may have across the world.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and in consultation with the staff of certain other federal functional regulators, has issued responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Requirements.

Summary below.

Below is a notice from FinCEN, the USA's Financial Intelligence Unit. But there's a subliminal message. It's issued out of the FinCEN distribution system but it makes it very obvious that FinCEN is part of Treasury. And, as we know, you don't mess with Treasury, ergo you don't mess with FinCEN.

The actual subject is scary, too.

CoNet Section: 

Sarah Beth Felix of Palmera Consulting, considers whether The FinCEN Files are a help or a hindrance when it comes to trying to engage both the public and senior management with the challenges facing Financial Crime Risk and Compliance Officers.

Yesterday, the USA's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(ANPRM) to solicit public comment on a wide range of questions pertaining to potential regulatory amendments under the Bank Secrecy Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the USA's Financial Intelligence Unit and money laundering, etc., regulator, has today issued a statement on the enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act.

The full statement (slightly edited for form, not edited for content) is below.

The USA's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (is that horrible logo new? FinCEN used to be so elegant) has issued a civil money penalty notice against a former Chief Officer of U.S. Bancorp N.A. for "failure to prevent" breaches of the Bank Secrecy Act during his employment at the company. But, FinCEN's allegations go further than simply "failing to prevent."

Kenneth A. Blanco, Director, FinCEN (The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the USA's FIU and a division of the Department of the Treasury) sets out how Bank Secrecy Act data, including "convertible virtual currencies."

FCRO Subsection: 

The USA's financial crime regulator and FIU, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, has announced that it has "launched" the "Global Investigations Division" or (inevitably) "GID". It is being sold as being focussed on money laundering threats that originate abroad. But what is it really? And has FinCEN at last found its calling?

(free for seven days)

FinCEN and the Federal Banking Agencies have issued a joint statement "encouraging innovative industry approaches" to money laundering compliance. It's not long and it encourages both human and technological innovation. But, importantly, it specifically says that it does not require those who don't need it to jump into NewTech just because it's there. It also says banks are free to fail when trying new things. It also says that some NewTech might result in regulators finding out things companies might rather they didn't.

BIScom Subsection: 

A notice, relating to the findings of the Financial Action Task Force relating to deficiencies in the counter-money laundering / anti-terrorist financing regimes of several jurisdictions, has been issued by the USA's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN.

Organised by Casino Essentials, a three-day conference and exhibition started in Las Vegas yesterday with the opening Keynote Presentation by Kenneth Blanco, Director, FinCEN. Before he got down to the nitty-gritty yesterday, Blanco was chummy with the lawyers and gaming industry reps and in his remarks prepared in advance he said "Thank you for that wonderful introduction, Jim" and "Thank you so much, Mindy, for inviting FinCEN to be a part of this event." So, chummy and psychic? How did the rest of his speech go? We know...

FinCEN can't make its mind up. On 16 May this year, FinCEN granted to covered financial institutions a 90 day exception from the requirement to comply with the " Beneficial Ownership Rule for Legal Entity Customers." Leaving aside the fact that, as with the UK's draft Bill, the term "Beneficial Owner" has been co-opted from an entirely different area of law and is therefore a cause for confusion, FinCEN Is up to its old tricks of mitigating the effect of a Rule while pretending that the USA has a strong counter-money laundering regime. The 90 days is up and, guess, what? FinCEN has extended it. What is going on?

One has to wonder what is happening at FinCEN's media room. As if its abolition of the possessive apostrophe in its emails isn't illiterate enough, they often make no sense. Here's an example in which both the English (American, we should say) doesn't make sense and the subject matter is, well, bemusing. Here comes the tech bit..

FCRO Subsection: 

Pages

hahagotcha