Ignoring Warnings Earns US Bank Compliance Officer a $450K Personal Fine
The consent order was especially critical of Michael LaFontaine repeatedly ignoring warnings by other compliance staff and by regulators that the bank's monitoring system was not adequate because it capped the number of alerts generated by suspicious transactions.
March 12, 2020 at 04:48 PM
3 minute read
Federal regulators are now often looking past CEOs and general counsel and taking aim at compliance officers personally.
In the latest incident, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network on March 4 assessed a $450,000 civil penalty against Michael LaFontaine, former chief operational risk officer at U.S. Bank in the Minneapolis area. It is believed to be the first time the regulator has personally penalized a bank compliance officer for his role in anti-money laundering failures.
The Department of Justice had already reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the bank's parent company, U.S. Bancorp, in a $613 million settlement in 2018. The agreement said U.S. Bank "willfully fail[ed] to have an adequate anti-money laundering program."
The banking regulator, however, decided to hold an individual accountable, and its investigation pointed to LaFontaine. Its statement said LaFontaine failed to prevent violations of anti-money laundering laws, even after being repeatedly warned about insufficiencies in the compliance program.
LaFontaine, a lawyer who did not return messages seeking comment, worked at the bank for 10 years, most of it in compliance. He is now co-founder and managing director of Redpoint Advisors, a corporate legal consulting firm in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.
The regulator said LaFontaine was liable in three areas: failing to implement an adequate transaction monitoring system, failing to devote adequate resources to the compliance program, and failing to timely file thousands of suspicious activity reports.
The consent order was especially critical of LaFontaine repeatedly ignoring warnings by other compliance staff and by regulators that the monitoring system was not adequate because it was capping the number of alerts generated by suspicious transactions. The cap meant some suspicious transactions were never flagged, investigated or reported.
It also said he failed to respond to internal and regulator warnings about being understaffed.
Last month the New York City Bar Association issued a report on the growing number of enforcement actions against individual compliance officers and said the trend was concerning to in-house counsel.
Michael Volkov, of the Volkov Law Group, wrote about the trend in a blog Thursday. "The lesson for compliance officers who work in regulated industries is fairly straightforward—when faced with real compliance problems, compliance professionals have to document efforts to address the deficiencies," wrote Volkov, who could not immediately be reached for comment.
He continued, "If a compliance professional fails to act in the face of clear and communicated deficiencies, the compliance professional faces risks of civil enforcement by regulatory agencies."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Wholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
- 2Decision of the Day: 'Attorney's Eyes Only' Protective Order Denied; Good Cause Not Demonstrated
- 3The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
- 4Lawsuits, AI Accuracy and Debt: Legal Tech Companies that Ran Into Trouble in 2024
- 5Preemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250