US regulators issue joint statement on AML requirements for the BSA
Regulators promise tough enforcement of AML requirements
The federal financial regulatory agencies have issued a statement setting forth their policy for enforcing specific anti-money laundering requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The purpose of the Interagency Statement on Enforcement of Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Requirements is to provide greater consistency among the agencies in enforcement decisions in BSA matters and to offer insight into the considerations that form the basis of those decisions.
The applicable statutes provide that if a regulated institution fails to establish and maintain a BSA compliance programme or fails to correct a previously identified problem with its BSA compliance programme, the appropriate agency shall issue a formal cease and desist order.
The statement, which reflects the agencies’ current practices on enforcement with respect to BSA compliance, describes the circumstances under which the agencies will issue a cease and desist order in compliance with these statutory provisions. The statement also makes clear that the agencies may take formal or informal enforcement actions to address other concerns related to BSA or anti-money laundering, depending on the facts.
The statement complements the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual, which was similarly designed to foster interagency consistency and transparency regarding the BSA examination process. The statement was issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Hong Kong derivatives regime could drive more offshore booking
Industry warns new capital requirements for securities firms are higher than other jurisdictions
Will Iosco’s guidance solve pre-hedging puzzle?
Buy-siders doubt consent requirement will remove long-standing concerns
Responsible AI is about payoffs as much as principles
How one firm cut loan processing times and improved fraud detection without compromising on governance
Could one-off loan losses at US regional banks become systemic?
Investors bet Zions, Western Alliance are isolated problems, but credit risk managers are nervous
SEC poised to approve expansion of CME-FICC cross-margining
Agency’s new division heads moving swiftly on applications related to US Treasury clearing
ECB bank supervisors want top-down stress test that bites
Proposal would simplify capital structure with something similar to US stress capital buffer
Clearing houses warn Esma margin rules will stifle innovation
Changes in model confidence levels could still trip supervisory threshold even after relaxation in final RTS
BlackRock, Citadel Securities, Nasdaq mull tokenised equities’ impact on regulations
An SEC panel recently debated the ramifications of a future with tokenised equities