The U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has proposed revisions to its customer due diligence rules. Of course, the proposed rule would affect financial institutions that are currently subject to FinCEN’s customer identification program requirement: banks, brokers-dealers, and mutual funds. However, FinCEN suggested that it may be considering expanding these customer due diligence requirements to other types of financial institutions. FinCEN names money services business, casinos and insurance companies. Investment advisers and private fund managers are not specifically mentioned.
According to FinCEN, an Anti-Money Laundering program should have four elements:
- Identify and verify the identity of customers;
- Identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers
- Understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships; and
- Conduct ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions.
Please notice number 2. The definition of “beneficial owner” is proposed as have two prongs:
- Ownership Prong: each individual who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, owns 25% or more of the equity interests of a legal entity customer, and
- Control Prong: An individual with significant responsibility to control, manage, or direct a legal entity customer, including an executive officer or senior manager (e.g., a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Member, General Partner, President, Vice President, or Treasurer); or (ii) any other individual who regularly performs similar functions.
For identifying ownership of an entity, FinCEN has proposed a form of certification. I find the certification to be overly simplistic. It only asks for individuals with ownership in the entity. This would clearly miss ownership of the account holder by other entities who could be “bad guys.” The certification also only requires one senior officer. That makes it too easy to appoint a straw man as executive officer to hide the underlying control by a “bad guy.”
On the other hand, it makes it really easy for the financial institution to check the boxes with requirements and confirm compliance.
The rule does not specifically contemplate investment advisers or private fund managers. For many investment advisers, the underlying broker-dealer or custodian will end up with KYC responsibilities. The investment adviser will have to be a conduit for that information.
Sources:
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making (.pdf)
- FINCEN Issues Proposed Revisions to its Regulations That Would Enhance Financial Institutions’ Customer Due Diligence Requirements from Goodwin Procter’s Financial Services Alert
