Follow Us

Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bank Secrecy Act

When companies, especially financial institutions, and not individuals are charged with serious offenses, criticism is now common. Yet such criticism may be particularly unwarranted in the high-profile BSA prosecutions of recent years, where criminal liability rests on an institutional failure to maintain appropriate systems and controls.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In recent years, white-collar criminal enforcement has been marked by a string of high-profile prosecutions of banks for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, the most recent against BNP Paribas. See United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, “Prosecuting Financial Institutions and Title 31 Offenses,” Vol. 61, No 5 at p. 19 (Sept. 2013) (listing banks that have been prosecuted). The BSA, enacted in 1970, requires domestic financial institutions to establish and maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) programs. The law has been amended over time, notably following the 9/11 attacks, to enhance AML requirements and widen the range of institutions required to have AML programs.

This premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only

Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS FOR WHITE-COLLAR CRIME AND REGULATORY PRACTITIONERS.
  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • All aspects of financial and white-collar crime are covered
  • Tap into expert guidance from top white-collar crime adn regulatory lawyers and experts

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe Now For Unlimited Access

Read These Next