Joint Trades on Anti-Money Laundering Program Effectiveness
Summary
SIFMA and joint trades provided comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) related to anti-money laundering (“AML”) program effectiveness.
We believe that regulatory action is necessary to enable financial institutions to allocate resources to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their AML programs, while remaining compliant with the legal requirements set forth in the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).
Therefore, we support the goals set forth in this rulemaking and the public sector’s efforts generally to “re-examine the BSA regulatory framework and the broader national AML regime. . . to upgrade and modernize [it].”
Excerpt
Via Electronic Mail
Policy Division
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
P.O. Box 39
Vienna, VA 22183
Re: Request for Comment Regarding Anti-Money Laundering Program Effectiveness (Docket No. FINCEN–2020–0011; RIN 1506-AB44)
To Whom It May Concern:
The Bank Policy Institute (“BPI”), the American Bankers Association (“ABA”), the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade “BAFT”), the Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness (“CCMC”), the Consumer Bankers Association (“CBA”), the Independent Community Bankers of America (“ICBA”), the Institute of International Bankers (“IIB”) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) (collectively, the “Associations”)1 appreciate the opportunity to comment on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) related to anti-money laundering (“AML”) program effectiveness. We believe that regulatory action is necessary to enable financial institutions to allocate resources to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their AML programs, while remaining compliant with the legal requirements set forth in the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). Therefore, we support the goals set forth in this rulemaking and the public sector’s efforts generally to “re-examine the BSA regulatory framework and the broader national AML regime. . . to upgrade and modernize [it].”2
As an initial matter, we encourage FinCEN and its regulatory partners to work collaboratively with law enforcement and the private sector to adopt the recommendations set forth by the BSAAG’s AML Effectiveness Working Group. Only with meaningful regulatory reform can the programmatic definition described in FinCEN’s proposed rule provide financial institutions with sufficient flexibility to address priority threats without imposing additional burden. We support FinCEN’s proposal that AML program expectations incorporate the utility of information provided to law enforcement, as applicable to specific types and sizes of financial institutions, in line with the statutory goals set forth in the BSA. The absence of this consideration has, in part, resulted in the current supervisory and internal audit focus on technical compliance, rather than the effectiveness of the program as a whole. Incorporating this concept into the AML program definition will better enable the public and private sectors to drive resource deployment to law enforcement needs and serve as a foundation for the recalibration of exam and internal audit approaches. This change, coupled with the establishment of national AML priorities, has the potential to further enable financial institutions to provide law enforcement with the most relevant and useful information.