PART TWO
2016 YEAR IN REVIEW
Money Laundering
2016 Year in Review: Money Laundering | Part Two
2016 YEAR IN REVIEW
Money Laundering
In part two of our re view of the 2016 developments in Anti-
Money Laundering (A ML), the Bank Secrecy Ac t (BSA), the
criminal money lau ndering statutes, forfeitu re, and related
issues, we discu ss four additional key topics:
• Federal bank ing regulators’ ef forts to ease indust ry
concerns about overly aggressi ve AML/BSA en forcement
and limit the practic e of “de-risking”
• Virtual currency
• Court opinions of note under the money launderi ng
statutes and the BSA
• Forfeiture policy and enforce ment
Click here if you mis sed part one of our ye ar in rev iew.
INTRODUCING MONEY
LAUNDERING WATCH
Financial inst itutions are facing an u nprecedented
level of scrutiny and enforcement in t he area of
money laundering. To keep you informed of the
latest developments, we have launched a new blog
focused exclusively on money launderi ng issues. Mone y
Laundering Watch provides news, analysis, and i nsight
from lawyers who advis e many of the world’s leading
financia l institutions and have f irsthand e xperience
in business and government. Plea se visit us at
www.moneyl aundering watchblog.com.
BANK ING REGULATORS TRY TO EASE
CONCERNS OV ER AGGRESSIV E AML/BSA
ENFORCEMENT
On August 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasur y
and four U.S. federal ba nking regu lators sought to correct
a problem—at least in par t, one of their own creation—
by issuing a “Joint Fact Sheet on Foreig n Corresp ondent
Banking” to clari fy enforcement priorities rega rding AML /
BSA and countering the f inancing of terrorism (CF T) regimes.
The Fact Sheet highli ghted the importance of m aintaining
correspondent bankin g relationships with foreign f inancial
institutions and the va lue of the free flow of monies w ithin and
across gl obal econom ies.
The Fact Sheet, in conjunction with a blog post by Treasury,
attempts to allay concern s raised by industr y and groups
such as the Internationa l Monetary Fund about the trend of
“de-risking” by U.S. ba nks as a resu lt of fear of aggressive A ML/
BSA enforcement by U.S. regulators a nd law enforcement.
In particul ar, the Fact Sheet suggests t hat U.S. banks h ave
overreacted to concerns over A ML/BSA enforcement by
unnecessar ily terminating c orrespondent banking rel ationships
with foreign bank s. It notes that these relationsh ips are crucial to
the global economy and ref lexive “de-risking” could destabil ize
or disrupt access to U.S. f inancing; h inder international trade,
cross-border business, and ch aritable activities; a nd make clai m
remittances ha rder to effectuate.
The blog post and Fact Sheet—which cla ims to “dispe l
certain my ths about U.S. supervisor y expectations”—m ake
two main points:
1. There is no expec tation of perfe ction, and U.S.
authorities do not employ a “zero tole rance” sta ndard
regardi ng AML /BSA and CF T compliance fa ilures.
About 95 percent of AML/BS A and CFT compliance
concerns and sanct ions are resolved through c autionary
