The Executive Vice President of Venezuela, Tareck Zaidan El Aissami Maddah (El Aissami), was designated on Monday by the U.S. Department of Treasury as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), El Aissami directly facilitated significant shipments of drugs from Venezuela into the United States and Mexico, and helped and protected other drug dealers operating within Venezuela.  OFAC also has alleged that El Aissami’s “primary frontman,” Samark Jose Lopez Bello, oversaw the finances of these operations and launders drug proceeds through “an international network of petroleum, distribution, engineering, telecommunications, and asset holding companies.”

After providing some additional details regarding these designations, we will discuss the Kingpin Act itself, a powerful and unique enforcement tool. Continue Reading Kingpin Act Wielded Against Vice President of Venezuela

The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA) issued on February 10, 2017 draft rules regarding certain anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism steps for Member States of the European Union (EU). The draft rules seek to provide a consistent framework for payment service providers or electronic money issuers which provide cross-border services within the EU, and which execute transactions exceeding three million Euros annually, to appoint and define the responsibilities of a Central Contract Point, or CCP.

Close up of magnifying glass on the flags of the worldA CCP, required to be appointed by some but not all EU Member States, serves as a point of contact between a Member State’s competent authorities and the firm. The basic responsibilities of a CCP include ensuring a firm’s compliance with the host Member State’s AML and counter-terrorism financing requirements, and facilitating the firm’s supervision by the host Member State’s competent authorities, such as by providing documents and information upon request.  According to the ESA Joint Committee, the draft rules “set out the criteria Member States will consider when deciding whether foreign payment service providers and electronic money issuers should appoint a CCP, and list the functions this CCP should perform. The aim is to support the development of a CCP regime that is clear, proportionate and risk-based, and effectively supports the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.”

These rules should help mitigate AML and terrorist financing risks by addressing the regulatory arbitrage opportunities that allow certain payments industry companies operating in the EU to avoid AML and counter-terrorism program requirements and supervision.

The ESA, which is comprised of the European Banking Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority, and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, is seeking comments on the proposed rules through May 5, 2017.

The Western Union Company (“Western Union”) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) on January 19th with the Department of Justice, based on alleged willful failures to maintain an effective AML program and the aiding and abetting of wire fraud.  The DPA involved a combined $586 million monetary penalty and also involved related civil enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission and FinCEN.  The agreement has been well-publicized and its details will not be repeated here; very generally, the DPA rests on allegations involving conduct stretching from 2004 through 2012 and an overall failure by Western Union to detect and prevent a kaleidoscope of illicit behavior by customers, from structured transactions to an international consumer fraud scheme to potential drug distribution.  To be sure, this is a significant agreement – but it echoes the same general sort of facts and allegations which have become almost standard in large AML enforcement actions. However, the Western Union action contains at least one interesting wrinkle. Continue Reading The Western Union DPA and the Need to Investigate One’s Own

NY DFS Seal CircleThe New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) has issued its fifth BitLicense to date, continuing a marked effort to bring legitimacy and controls to the virtual currency (“VC”) industry, whose advantages in lowering costs and creating efficiencies have been marred with concerns of nefarious use.

Founded in 2012, Coinbase, Inc. operates as a digital currency exchange and is perched at the top of well-funded startups in the VC industry. Its BitLicense signifies an important milestone in the company’s nearly two-year, multi-state licensing strategy. In the same vein, the fact that a VC market-leader has sought after and is now approved to do business in New York is an equally important occasion for the BitLicense program itself. Continue Reading Coinbase the Latest to Obtain New York BitLicense

In part two of our review of the 2016 developments in Anti-Money Laundering (AML), the Bank Secrecy Act, (BSA), the criminal money laundering statutes, forfeiture, and related issues, we discuss four additional key topics:

You can read more about these topics areas in the blogs that follow.  Click here to read the full article 2016 Year in Review: Money Laundering (Part Two).  Click here if you missed Part One of our 2016 year in review.

Big Stock Photo_805445On August 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and four U.S. federal banking regulators sought to correct a problem—at least in part one of their own creation—by issuing a “Joint Fact Sheet on Foreign Correspondent Banking” to clarify enforcement priorities regarding AML/BSA and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) regimes. The Fact Sheet highlighted the importance of maintaining correspondent banking relationships with foreign financial institutions and the value of the free flow of monies within and across global economies.

Continue Reading 2016 Year End Review: Banking Regulators Try to Ease Concerns Over Aggressive AML/BSA Enforcement

The federal courts continued in 2016 to produce a stream of cases pertaining to money laundering. We focus on three below because they involve analysis of basic issues that frequently arise in money laundering litigation.

Justitia, a monument in Frankfurt, Germany

The first case tests the money laundering statute’s reach in prosecution of an alleged international fraud perpetrated primarily outside of the United States—an increasingly common fact pattern as cross-border cases proliferate and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutes more conduct occurring largely overseas. The other two cases involve defense victories that focus on critical issues of mental state: the question of specific intent under the BSA, and the question, under the money laundering statutes, of knowledge by a third party that a transaction involved proceeds of another person’s crime. The issue of third-party knowledge is often crucial in prosecutions of professionals. Continue Reading 2016 Year End Review: Money Laundering Opinions of Note

House and cashThe field of forfeiture saw significant action in 2016. The IRS offered to return forfeited funds used in structuring, but Congress still may clip its ability to forfeit such funds. Meanwhile, DOJ renewed a controversial program that incentivizes local law enforcement to aggressively pursue forfeiture. It filed a major forfeiture action which reminds law firms of their own need to vet the source of funds flowing into firm bank accounts. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that “clean” funds cannot be restrained pretrial when a defendant needs those funds for his criminal defense, even if the government wants to restrain the money in order to pay for forfeiture or restitution if the defendant is convicted. Continue Reading 2016 Year in Review: Forfeiture