September 24, 2020

Volume X, Number 268

September 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 21, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

FinCEN Explains What Guides Its Enforcement Decisions

On August 18, 2020, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is the primary regulator and administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), issued a statement on enforcement of the BSA. The requirements of the BSA typically apply to financial institutions, but in certain circumstances the Act applies to nonfinancial businesses and individuals.

FinCEN’s statement attempts to clarify when the agency chooses to bring enforcement actions for violations of the BSA. The statement is noteworthy in part because in its role in administering the BSA, FinCEN is the agency that issues rules and guidance to covered industries. Historically, FinCEN did not bring many of its own enforcement actions – in fact, the agency lacks authority to enforce its own civil monetary penalties and relies on the Civil Division of the Department of Justice to do so. But over the last decade, FinCEN has taken a far more aggressive role in filing its own enforcement action under the BSA. Unlike criminal cases under the BSA, which require the government to prove intentional, willful violations of the statute, the standards that govern FinCEN’s enforcement actions are murkier and merely require reckless disregard. FinCEN’s statement provides a rare explanation of what the agency considers in bringing an enforcement action. According to FinCEN, it looks to the following factors in determining whether to initiate an enforcement action:

  1. Nature and seriousness of the violations, including the extent of possible harm to the public and the amounts involved.
  2. Impact or harm of the violations on FinCEN’s mission to safeguard the financial system from illicit use, combat money laundering, and promote national security.
  3. Pervasiveness of wrongdoing within an entity, including management’s complicity in, condoning or enabling of, or knowledge of the conduct underlying the violations.
  4. History of similar violations, or misconduct in general, including prior criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions.
  5. Financial gain or other benefit resulting from, or attributable to, the violations.

FinCEN notes that it reviews these factors in evaluating whether to bring an enforcement action. While none of these factors are surprising, the very fact that FinCEN has highlighted these factors as guideposts for enforcement suggests that where they do not exist, firms and individuals can emphasize their absence as mitigating factors that weigh against an enforcement action.

FinCEN explains its enforcement process as follows: (1) FinCEN will seek to establish a violation of law based on applicable statutes and regulations, but will not treat noncompliance with a standard of conduct announced solely in a guidance document as itself a violation of law; (2) parties will be given an opportunity to respond to and contest any underlying factual findings or legal conclusions; and (3) upon identifying an actual or possible violation, FinCEN will take one of the steps below.

  1. No Action: FinCEN may close a matter with no additional action, and may reopen the matter if FinCEN obtains new material information concerning the matter or becomes aware of additional violations.
  2. Warning Letter: FinCEN may issue a warning through a supervisory letter or similar communication.
  3. Equitable Remedies: FinCEN may seek an injunction or equitable relief to enforce compliance when FinCEN believes an entity or individual has violated, is violating, or will violate the BSA.
  4. Settlements: As part of a settlement, FinCEN may require both remedial undertakings and civil money penalties.
  5. Civil Money Penalties: FinCEN may assess a civil money penalty.
  6. Criminal Referral: If circumstances warrant, FinCEN may refer a matter to law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and/or criminal prosecution.

As money-laundering schemes become more sophisticated, there has been widespread concern over the efficiency of the BSA and public pressure on financial regulators to bring their own cases, not simply act as examiners. FinCEN’s latest statement on its own enforcement priorities and process is useful for regulated entities and financial institutions – not only in clarifying where FinCEN draws its own lines, but also in suggesting potential defenses and mitigating arguments when dealing with the agency.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 260


About this Author

 Seetha Ramachandran Proskauer New York, Trial Strategies White Collar Defense & Investigations Appellate,Financial Institutions, anti-money laundering AML, Bank Secrecy Act,

Seetha Ramachandran is a partner in the Litigation Department.

She is a leading expert in anti-money laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act, economic sanctions and asset forfeiture matters. She represents banks, broker dealers, hedge funds, private equity funds, online payment companies, and individual executives and officers, in high stakes and sensitive matters. Her practice focuses on white collar and regulatory enforcement defense, internal investigations, and compliance counseling. In addition to her subject matter expertise, Seetha is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer,...

Hena Vora Litigation Attorney

Hena Vora earned her J.D. from Emory University School of Law, where she received the Pro Bono Publico honor and a Transactional Law Certificate. In addition, she was a national competitor on the Moot Court Society and served as president of Emory’s South Asian Law Students Association. While at Emory, she served as judicial intern for Judge Denny Chin at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, legal extern for General Electric and securities research assistant to Professor George Georgiev.

Prior to law school, Hena worked as a paralegal at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, focusing on residential mortgage-backed securities litigation. She also interned for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts.