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.1 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.
Notwithstanding a series of multi-billion dollar settlements, the government’s enforcement efforts have met with criticism.2 In addition to claiming that the banks themselves have not been sufficiently punished, critics have lamented that individuals are not being held accountable for criminal conduct—a common complaint about government enforcement efforts since the 2007-08 financial crisis.3 In fact, individuals have been prosecuted for BSA violations, but not in the recent cases against global financial institutions that have captured media headlines.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
