The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced last week that seven states have agreed to a multi-state compact that, according to the CSBS, “standardizes key elements of the licensing process for money services businesses (MSB).”

The seven states consist of Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.  The CSBS expects other states to join the compact.  Under the compact, if one participating state has reviewed key elements of a company’s operations in connection with the company’s application for money transmitter license (IT, cybersecurity, business plan, background check, and compliance with the federal Bank Secrecy Act), the other participating states will accept that state’s findings.

The CSBS describes the compact as “the first step among state regulators in moving towards an integrated, 50-state system of licensing and supervision for fintechs.”  It is expected to significantly streamline the MSB licensing process.

As we have blogged, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 makes it a crime to operate a money transmitter business without an appropriate license in a State, and/or without having registered with FinCEN as a MSB under 31 U.S.C. § 5330.

If you would like to remain updated on these issues, please click here to subscribe to Money Laundering Watch.

As the value of bitcoin continues to soar (USD:BTC this past weekend exceeded $19,000.00:1), we thought that now would be a good time to emphasize the need to ensure regulatory compliance with the many federal and state AML rules and regulations, in addition to those segmented across various countries. A caveat: This post is far from exhaustive, and before undertaking any investment in cryptocurrency, it would be wise to consult with an attorney familiar with the rules applicable to the cryptocurrency sector.  Due to the nascency of the sector, the practical application of previously existing laws and regulations is rapidly evolving.

To begin, the notion that bitcoin and other digital tokens represent a currency only for criminals has been dispelled. Indeed, there is no question that investment in cryptocurrencies is inherently lawful and increasingly commonplace.  In 2017 alone, investment in initial coin offerings, or token sales, has exceeded $1.5 billion; in a similar vein, the value of certain cryptocurrencies now exceeds a number of Fortune 50 companies.  Most recently, CBOE and CME, the world’s largest futures exchange, launched bitcoin futures contracts.

With this in mind, and as we have written on this blog before (see herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), it is clear that regulators are moving aggressively to bring the cryptocurrency sector into the fold of existing rules and regulations. To be sure, applying these rules to the burgeoning sector has been like fitting a square peg in a round hole; a bedrock of the initial cryptocurrency boom was the promise of anonymity for its users. Conversely, identity verification is a bedrock of AML compliance. Continue Reading Beyond Best Practices: Regulatory Compliance Now a Necessity in the Cryptocurrency Sector

It is a potential crime to conduct a business that exchanges virtual currency and fail to register with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN“), even if the State in which one operates does not impose a similar licensing requirement. A federal district court in Louisiana has reaffirmed this principle in United States v. Lord, in which the defendants unsuccessfully sought to withdraw their pleas of guilty to offenses based on a failure to register with FinCEN.

Law and Justice

The defendants are father and son. According to the court opinion, in 2013, they began to operate a bitcoin business through a website called localbitcoins.com, which advertised the services of other bitcoin exchangers. The defendants’ clients provided cash, credit card payments and wire transfers to the defendants to purchase bitcoins from a third-party online bitcoin broker on their client’s behalf, in exchange for commissions charged by the defendants. In the Spring of 2014, the third-party bitcoin broker warned the defendants that they were required to register with FinCEN because they were acting as virtual currency exchangers. Although the defendants allegedly misrepresented to the third-party online broker that they already had registered with FinCEN, the defendants did not actually register until November 2014. By that time, however, they already had exchanged more than $2.5 million worth of virtual currency. This registration delay was the basis of the charges relating to the defendants’ virtual currency business. Continue Reading Failure to Register with FINCEN Sustains Guilty Pleas by Virtual Currency Exchangers

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.

If you would like to remain updated on these issues, please click here to subscribe to Money Laundering Watch.

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