
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
Markets worry EU’s reporting simplification will add to burden
Rather than reducing firms’ obligations, market participants fear it could end up increasing requirements
EU banks show basic instinct for credit valuation adjustments
Simpler approach to CVA appeals even to some already using more complex models for counterparty risk
Bank of England wants dynamic Emir for UK clearing houses
Review won’t just photocopy EU legislation, as BoE seeks to make rules simpler and adaptable
Big banks could be sidelined from future rescue deals – FSB
Exacerbation of too-big-to-fail means G-Sibs could already be too large to take extra assets
More guidance, less enforcement: the SEC under Paul Atkins
Current and former insiders expect clearer crypto rules and an end to regulatory violation sweeps
During Trump turbulence, value-at-risk may go pop
Trading risk models have been trained in quiet markets, and volatility is now looming
Bank of England mustering unit to model system-wide stresses
Permanent team at UK supervisor will work on buy- and sell-side interactions
Regis-TR and the Emir Refit blame game
Reporting overhaul was marred by problems at repositories, prompting calls to stagger future go-live dates