The Chief Compliance Officer of a money transmitter agreed to pay a $250,000 penalty and a 3-year bar from serving in a compliance function in connection with anti-money laundering compliance failures. As part of his settlement with FinCEN and the U.S. Attorney, the CCO also admitted to failing to stop potential money laundering despite being “presented with information that strongly indicated that the outlets were complicit in consumer fraud schemes” and implementing an inadequate AML program. The settlement concludes the case which had initially imposed a $1 Million fine, which could have been as much as $4.75 Million based on the statutory penalty of $25,000 for each failure to file a Suspicious Activity Report. The Acting U.S. Attorney explained the decision to prosecute a CCO: “Compliance officers perform an essential function, serving as the first line of defense in the fight against fraud and money laundering.”
OUR TAKE: Compliance officers that assume anti-money laundering duties are subject to prosecution and significant fines by both FinCEN and the DoJ (in addition to FINRA and other financial regulators). Nobody condones the CCO’s conduct in this case, but one question many compli-pros have asked is why has the CCO been singled out for personal liability? Why didn’t the feds pursue the operations folks that vet clients or the senior executives in charge? And, why does the CCO pay a fine when he did not financially benefit from the misconduct?
The SEC commenced an enforcement action against a broker-dealer’s chief compliance officer/anti-money laundering officer for failing to file Suspicious Activity Reports. The SEC alleges that the CCO/AML Officer had actual knowledge of red flags of illegal penny stock trading and money laundering. Such red flags included physical deposits of large blocks of penny stocks followed by rapid liquidation, simultaneous trading in two customer accounts, quick changes in issuer business plans, and clearly misleading company press releases. Also, the SEC maintains that a quick Google search would have raised other red flags including prior enforcement actions and articles alleging pump and dump activity. The SEC accuses the CCO/AML Officer for aiding and abetting and causing his firm’s violations of Rule 17a-8, which requires a broker-dealer to comply with the SAR requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act.
OUR TAKE: The regulators have been keen to impose personal liability on CCOs for violations of the Anti-Money Laundering rules including failures to file SARs. In fact, FinCEN can impose a $25,000 fine on an AML Officer for each failure to file an SAR (See e.g. U.S. Dept of Treasury v. Haider).
FINRA fined a large broker-dealer $16.5 Million for failing to devote sufficient resources to anti-money laundering compliance. According to FINRA, the firm’s AML monitoring analysts were “negatively impacted by the level of resources dedicated by the firm to AML surveillance.” With respect to exceptions generated by an automated system, FINRA claims that the internal staff was overwhelmed: “The number of analysts employed by the firm at any time (ranging from 3 to 5) did not have the ability to adequately review the tens of thousands of alerts generated.” FINRA also faults the firm for mis-programming an automated surveillance system and for over-relying on sales traders to report suspicious AML activities when most order flow came into the firm electronically.
OUR TAKE: The regulators have increasingly examined the level of resources devoted to compliance monitoring as an indication of a firm’s commitment to compliance. While every firm must assess its own needs, firms should spend no less than 5% of revenue on compliance monitoring.