Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Money Laundering Compliance Examinations
Last month, we pointed out that for money-laundering compliance officers, a classic Bob Dylan song offers a word of sound advice: “You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'.” We said that the biggest change financial institutions face is the new, expanded-scope anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory examination, and the proliferation of Written Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, or Cease and Desist Orders issued by bank regulatory agencies should the financial institution be found to be deficient. We explained that bank regulators are focused on multiple issues: Commitment to AML, SARS (suspicious activity reporting and detection) and Risk Ranking. In this article, we discuss the fourth concern: Policies and Procedures.
Policies and Procedures
The final concern is the bank's AML policies and procedures themselves. More than 4 years have passed since the USA Patriot Act was enacted, and customer identification regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act were finalized long ago. Regulators believe that financial institutions should have their program not merely drafted, but fully implemented. In order to examine whether an institution's AML program has been fully put into operation, the examiners will conduct a comprehensive review of the bank's compliance program. Their checklist includes: Independent File Testing (to ensure that policies are being followed), Compliance Officer (to ensure that there is a designated compliance officer, and that this person is “up to the task”), Training (to ensure that there has been training at all levels of the institution, including the Board), Risk-Ranking Customer Base (to ensure that the highest risk accounts receive the greatest attention), Enhanced Due Diligence (to ensure that follow-up due diligence is performed on the highest-risk accounts), Currency Transaction and Suspicious Activity Reporting (to ensure that all reporting obligations are being followed in letter and spirit) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) checking of lists on sanctioned countries, entities, and individuals.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.