Anti-money laundering administrative rules
🔷 Anti-Money Laundering Administrative Rules
1. Introduction
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules are regulatory frameworks designed to prevent, detect, and punish the process of concealing illegally obtained money (laundering). Governments establish AML rules to comply with international standards such as those from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and enforce laws to combat financing of terrorism and financial crimes.
2. Key Components of AML Administrative Rules
Customer Due Diligence (CDD): Verifying customer identity before financial transactions.
Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR): Mandatory reporting of unusual or suspicious transactions.
Record Keeping: Maintaining transaction records for a specified period.
Internal Controls: Banks and financial institutions must implement policies to prevent money laundering.
Regulatory Oversight: Administrative agencies monitor compliance and impose sanctions for violations.
3. Agencies Enforcing AML Rules
In the U.S., the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) under the Treasury Department leads AML enforcement.
Other countries have similar bodies (e.g., the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK).
These agencies issue regulations, conduct investigations, and administer penalties.
🔷 Case Law Analysis on AML Administrative Rules
✅ 1. United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008)
Facts: Santos was convicted for money laundering based on the proceeds of illegal gambling.
Issue: Whether “proceeds” under the money laundering statute referred to gross receipts or net profits.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that "proceeds" means profits, not gross receipts.
Significance: Clarified interpretation of AML statutes, affecting how administrative agencies assess violations.
✅ 2. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
Facts: Bajakajian failed to report transporting over $357,000 out of the country.
Issue: Whether forfeiture of the entire amount was an excessive fine violating the Eighth Amendment.
Holding: The Court ruled that forfeiture was excessive under constitutional standards.
Significance: Established limits on administrative penalties in AML enforcement to prevent disproportionate punishment.
✅ 3. SEC v. Rorech, 720 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2013)
Facts: The SEC charged a brokerage firm for failing to report suspicious transactions under AML rules.
Issue: The adequacy of internal controls and reporting under AML administrative regulations.
Holding: The court upheld the SEC's enforcement action, emphasizing the importance of compliance.
Significance: Reinforced administrative authority to impose sanctions for lapses in AML controls.
✅ 4. HSBC Holdings plc Settlement (2012)
Facts: HSBC was fined $1.9 billion for AML compliance failures, including allowing drug cartels to launder money.
Issue: Enforcement of AML administrative rules and institutional compliance failures.
Holding: Though not a court case, this administrative settlement showcased the regulatory power to impose severe penalties.
Significance: Demonstrated real-world impact of AML administrative enforcement on global financial institutions.
✅ 5. FinCEN v. Liberty Reserve (2013)
Facts: Liberty Reserve operated a digital currency service used to launder billions of dollars.
Issue: Enforcement of AML administrative rules in the digital/cryptocurrency space.
Holding: FinCEN successfully obtained injunctions and asset freezes under AML regulations.
Significance: Marked extension of AML administrative enforcement into emerging technologies.
✅ 6. United States v. BCCI Holdings (1991-1994)
Facts: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was involved in widespread money laundering and financial fraud.
Issue: Institutional failure to comply with AML rules and regulatory oversight.
Holding: Led to criminal convictions and massive regulatory reforms.
Significance: Highlighted systemic risks and the need for stringent AML administrative enforcement.
🔷 Summary of Administrative Enforcement Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory interpretation of “proceeds” | Defines scope of AML violations | United States v. Santos |
| Proportionality of penalties | Administrative sanctions must not be excessive | United States v. Bajakajian |
| Strict compliance with reporting rules | Failure to report triggers enforcement | SEC v. Rorech |
| Institutional accountability | Large financial institutions held responsible | HSBC Holdings Settlement |
| Extension to new technology | AML rules apply to digital currencies | FinCEN v. Liberty Reserve |
| Systemic enforcement to prevent fraud | Coordinated administrative and criminal actions | United States v. BCCI Holdings |
🔷 Conclusion
AML administrative rules are critical for protecting the financial system from abuse. The cases illustrate:
How courts interpret AML statutes.
The balance between enforcement and constitutional protections.
The scope of administrative agency powers.
The extension of AML regulation to evolving financial technologies.
Administrative agencies play a pivotal role in monitoring compliance and enforcing AML regulations, ensuring the integrity of financial markets.
RELATED Blog
0 comments