May 24, 2012

New Gift Card Rules from FinCEN

On July 29, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued the “Prepaid Access Final Rule” (the Final Rule), which applied anti-money-laundering requirements to certain prepaid cards, including some gift cards. More recently, FinCEN issued guidance about the new rule in the form of a collection of frequently asked questions. The new rule takes full effect on March 31, 2012, so all retailers should take steps now to ensure they are in compliance with the rule’s requirements by that date. This edition of Morgan Lewis Retail Did You Know? describes the Final Rule and its application to retailers’ gift card programs.

Background

The Final Rule was designed to eliminate a potential loophole in anti-money-laundering restrictions by requiring“providers” and “sellers” of certain prepaid access cards to develop and maintain an anti-money-laundering program.

The Final Rule

The Final Rule applies to both “providers” and “sellers” of prepaid cards. Unless an exception applies, the Final Rule requires retailers to implement internal procedures designed to minimize risks of money laundering, including requirements for (a) verifying customer identification, (b) filing necessary reports, (c) creating and retaining records, and (d) responding to law enforcement requests.

FinCEN has indicated that retailers with closed-loop gift card programs could structure their programs to avoid being “providers.” In particular, the Final Rule exempted closed-loop gift cards sold in or reloaded with amounts of  less than $2,000. Moreover, retailers can avoid being considered “sellers” under the Final Rule if they takeprecautions to avoid sales of gift cards worth more than $10,000 to any one person in the same day. This latter requirement generated some concern among retailers since many retailers make bulk sales of gift cards to third-party vendors. The language of the Final Rule suggested that such sales would need to be limited to $10,000 per day, or the retailers would be subject to the requirements and have to implement an anti-moneylaundering program.

However, FinCEN’s recently issued guidance makes it clear that the requirement does not apply to the sale of gift cards to other businesses for distribution or sale to end users/consumers by those businesses. In those circumstances, the risk of gift cards being used for money-laundering purposes is considered sufficiently low .

The Final Rule was initially set to go into effect on September 27, 2011, but industry representatives had expressed concerns that an IT lock-down on financial systems surrounding the back-to-school and holiday season would prevent making changes necessary to comply with or exempt themselves from the law. Responding to those concerns, FinCEN announced that it would not take compliance action against “sellers” or “providers” until March 31, 2012.

Practical Advice

Retailers should review their gift card programs to ensure they have the necessary limitations in place to avoid the need to develop anti-money-laundering programs. To accomplish this, retailers would need to limit their gift cards to values of $2,000 or less, and prevent sales of gift cards worth more than $10,000 to any one person in the same day.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Gregory T. Parks is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Litigation Practice, with a focus on commercial, privacy and consumer matters for retailers, financial services organizations, and other businesses. Mr. Parks counsels and represents clients in a wide variety of matters, including consumer class actions, data privacy class actions, privacy and data security compliance, litigation involving retailers, disputes arising from mergers and acquisitions, contract and indemnification matters, and fraud lawsuits.

215-963-5170

About the Author

Partner

Anne Marie Estevez is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. Ms. Estevez's practice focuses on the defense and trial of complex employment and accessibility (ADA) cases in federal and state courts, as well as on advising, training, and counseling companies on state and federal employment and accessibility laws. She is fluent in Spanish.

305.415.3330

Contributors

Partner

Joseph Duffy is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Litigation Practice. Mr. Duffy's practice focuses primarily on commercial litigation, products liability, and toxic torts, including complex mass tort litigation. His practice in this area includes acting as national, coordinating, and trial counsel. Mr. Duffy has trial experience in mass tort and products liability matters and has served as first or second-chair trial counsel on more than a dozen cases. Generally, he has represented chemical, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, and construction products companies in...

213-612-7378

About the Author

Partner

Stefanie Moll is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. Ms. Moll focuses her practice on employment litigation in federal and state courts and in arbitration. She has experience litigating on behalf of management in a variety of employment law disputes and in all types of discrimination claims, including, among others, claims involving workers' compensation retaliation, sexual harassment, race, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination. Ms. Moll also regularly represents employers in FLSA collective actions involving...

713.890.5780

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.