The Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has been toying with how to impose anti-money laundering standards on private funds and investment advisers for years. There is rumbling from the White House Office of Management and Budget that it approved proposed new regulation.
A notice of rulemaking was dropped a few years ago. The thought then was that the underlying custodian has AML standards in place to keep things in line for investment advisers.
The posting at the OMB states that a proposal is moving along. According to the entry, the rule would “prescribe minimum standards for anti-money laundering programs to be established by certain investment advisers and to require such investment advisers to report suspicious activity to FinCEN.”
A few months ago U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen gave speech to to the ABA/ABA Money Laundering Enforcement Conference and said changes are underway.
It looks like changes are coming.
Sources:
Uhm. The Banking Depatment regulates SCB. Why can’t they fine them? And I read the catmlointpo say they were hiding information. I can’t do that with my regulator. Why can they? And anotherthing I don’t get: how does the settlement affect a criminal investigation? Regulatory investigations goon during criminal investigations all the time. The settlement language would say something like , our agreement doesn’t affect their investigation. Done. Where us the issue? And let’s be real these criminal investigations always result in fines anyway. It’s not like the company goes to jail! So the real question might be: what right do the prosecutors have to this case when all they’re really doing is civilly fining an entity they don’t regulate. Maybe it’s them stepping on the Banking Department’s toes in all hose other cases. If Lawsky came in and put an end to that nonsense, then maybe he’s a genius.