Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Repeal of Special Measure Involving Banco Delta Asia (BDA), 48105-48107 [2020-17143]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Secretary of the Treasury to administer
the BSA and its implementing
regulations has been delegated to the
Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act
grants the Secretary the authority, upon
finding that reasonable grounds exist for
concluding that a foreign jurisdiction,
foreign financial institution, class of
transactions, or type of account is of
‘‘primary money laundering concern,’’
to require domestic financial
institutions and financial agencies to
take certain ‘‘special measures’’ to
address the primary money laundering
concern. The five special measures
enumerated under Section 311 are
prophylactic safeguards that defend the
U.S. financial system from money
laundering and terrorist financing.
FinCEN may impose one or more of
these special measures in order to
protect the U.S. financial system from
these threats. To that end, special
measures one through four, codified at
31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)–(b)(4), impose
additional recordkeeping, information
collection, and information reporting
requirements on covered U.S. financial
institutions. The fifth special measure,
codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5),
allows the Secretary to prohibit or
impose conditions on the opening or
maintaining of correspondent or
payable-through accounts by covered
U.S. financial institutions for or on
behalf of a foreign banking institution.
Taken as a whole, Section 311
provides the Secretary with a range of
options that can be adapted to target
specific money laundering and terrorist
financing concerns most effectively.
These options provide the authority to
bring additional and necessary pressure
on those jurisdictions and institutions
that pose money-laundering threats and
the ability to take steps to protect the
U.S. financial system. Through the
imposition of various special measures,
FinCEN can: Gain more information
about the concerned jurisdictions,
financial institutions, transactions, and
accounts; monitor more effectively the
respective jurisdictions, financial
institutions, transactions, and accounts;
and, ultimately, protect U.S. financial
institutions from involvement with
jurisdictions, financial institutions,
transactions, or accounts that pose a
money laundering concern.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
II. Administrative Background
On September 20, 2005 (70 FR 55214),
FinCEN published a finding in the
Federal Register that reasonable
grounds existed to conclude that BDA
was a foreign financial institution of
primary money laundering concern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
(Notice of Finding).1 Simultaneous with
publication of the Notice of Finding,
FinCEN published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing the imposition of
the fifth special measure against BDA.2
On March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12730),
FinCEN published a final rule in the
Federal Register imposing the fifth
special measure against BDA, codified
at 31 CFR 103.193 (subsequently
renumbered as 31 CFR 1010.655) (Final
Rule).3
Shortly after FinCEN concluded its
rulemaking proceedings, in April 2007,
BDA submitted a petition requesting the
immediate rescission of the Final Rule.
The following month, Stanley Au and
Delta Asia Group (Holdings) Ltd., the
owners of BDA, filed a separate petition
for rescission of the Final Rule. FinCEN
denied both petitions on September 21,
2007. On November 16, 2010, BDA
again petitioned FinCEN to repeal the
Final Rule. As part of an ongoing
dialogue between FinCEN and BDA
from 2012 through 2019, BDA agreed to
arrange for two independent reviews of
the bank, the results of which were
subsequently shared with FinCEN.
By letter dated September 26, 2019,
FinCEN ultimately denied BDA’s
November 2010 petition, providing BDA
a memorandum thoroughly explaining
its decision. In its denial, FinCEN
discussed the results of the independent
reviews of BDA and identified the
limitations in these reviews. FinCEN
acknowledged that BDA had taken steps
to address some of the deficiencies
highlighted in the Notice of Finding and
Final Rule, but concluded that BDA had
failed to correct other significant
deficiencies. FinCEN ultimately
determined that BDA’s AML
compliance efforts remained inadequate
to address the risks identified in the
Notice of Finding and Final Rule.
In addition to petitioning FinCEN to
withdraw the Final Rule, BDA filed suit
on March 14, 2013, in the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia challenging the Notice of
Finding and the Final Rule. This
litigation was stayed for many years so
that the dialogue described above could
continue. Both FinCEN and BDA have
since agreed that there are advantages to
FinCEN’s revisiting the Final Rule and
to settling this litigation. This course of
action allows BDA to submit any
remaining additional comments and
permits FinCEN to take stock of the
present circumstances and, if
appropriate, to avail itself of the
informal rulemaking process (providing
1 70
FR 55214 (Sept. 20, 2005).
at 55217.
3 72 FR 12731 (Mar. 19, 2007).
2 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48105
the public with an opportunity for
notice and comment, in contrast to
action on a petition) if it decides to take
further action. As part of this settlement,
FinCEN has agreed to reassess whether
BDA is presently a financial institution
of primary money laundering concern.
BDA will be permitted to submit
comments to FinCEN regarding the
September 26, 2019 petition denial prior
to FinCEN’s engaging in any additional
Section 311 rulemaking involving BDA.
In the event that FinCEN determines
that the imposition of any special
measures may be warranted, it will
undertake a new rulemaking effort
(including the publication of a new
notice of proposed rulemaking). Any
such proposed rule will allow for 30
days of comment, and as part of the
rulemaking proceeding, FinCEN will
make available for comment the
unclassified, non-protected material
relied upon by FinCEN in connection
with any such rulemaking. If FinCEN
determines that a final rule is
appropriate, FinCEN will publish such
a final rule 60 days following the close
of the comment period. If the extent of
submitted comments requires additional
time, or if COVID–19-related issues
hinder the agency’s ability to satisfy the
proposed timeframes, FinCEN will so
announce in the Federal Register.
III. Withdrawal of the Notice of Finding
For the reasons set forth above,
FinCEN hereby withdraws the Notice of
Finding that BDA is of primary money
laundering concern published on
September 20, 2005.
Michael Mosier,
Deputy Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2020–17144 Filed 8–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Part 1010
RIN 1506–AA83
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; Repeal of Special Measure
Involving Banco Delta Asia (BDA)
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule repeals regulations
concerning Special measures against
Banco Delta Asia, which were issued
pursuant to Section 311 of the USA
PATRIOT Act (Section 311). Subsequent
to the issuance of this rule, FinCEN will
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10AUR1.SGM
10AUR1
48106
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reassess whether BDA is presently a
financial institution of primary money
laundering concern and additional
rulemaking is warranted. Elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register,
FinCEN is publishing a withdrawal of
the finding regarding BDA, issued
September 20, 2005.
DATES: Effective August 10, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
FinCEN Resource Center at frc@
fincen.gov.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
I. Statutory Background
On October 26, 2001, the President
signed into law the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,
Public Law 107–56 (USA PATRIOT
Act). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act
amends the anti-money laundering
provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act
(BSA), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12
U.S.C. 1951–1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311–
5314, 5316–5332, to promote the
prevention, detection, and prosecution
of international money laundering and
the financing of terrorism. Regulations
implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR
chapter X. The authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to administer
the BSA and its implementing
regulations has been delegated to the
Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act
grants the Secretary the authority, upon
finding that reasonable grounds exist for
concluding that a foreign jurisdiction,
foreign financial institution, class of
transactions, or type of account is of
‘‘primary money laundering concern,’’
to require domestic financial
institutions and financial agencies to
take certain ‘‘special measures’’ to
address the primary money laundering
concern. The five special measures
enumerated under Section 311 are
prophylactic safeguards that defend the
U.S. financial system from money
laundering and terrorist financing.
FinCEN may impose one or more of
these special measures in order to
protect the U.S. financial system from
these threats. To that end, special
measures one through four, codified at
31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)–(b)(4), impose
additional recordkeeping, information
collection, and information reporting
requirements on covered U.S. financial
institutions. The fifth special measure,
codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5),
allows the Secretary to prohibit or
impose conditions on the opening or
maintaining of correspondent or
payable-through accounts by covered
U.S. financial institutions for or on
behalf of a foreign banking institution.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
Taken as a whole, Section 311
provides the Secretary with a range of
options that can be adapted to target
specific money laundering and terrorist
financing concerns most effectively.
These options provide the authority to
bring additional and necessary pressure
on those jurisdictions and institutions
that pose money-laundering threats and
the ability to take steps to protect the
U.S. financial system. Through the
imposition of various special measures,
FinCEN can: Gain more information
about the concerned jurisdictions,
financial institutions, transactions, and
accounts; monitor more effectively the
respective jurisdictions, financial
institutions, transactions, and accounts;
and, ultimately, protect U.S. financial
institutions from involvement with
jurisdictions, financial institutions,
transactions, or accounts that pose a
money laundering concern.
II. Administrative Background
On September 20, 2005, FinCEN
published a finding in the Federal
Register that reasonable grounds existed
to conclude that BDA was a foreign
financial institution of primary money
laundering concern (Notice of Finding).1
Simultaneous with publication of the
Notice of Finding, FinCEN published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing the imposition of the fifth
special measure against BDA.2 On
March 19, 2007, FinCEN published a
final rule in the Federal Register
imposing the fifth special measure
against BDA, codified at 31 CFR 103.193
(subsequently renumbered as 31 CFR
1010.655) (Final Rule).3
Shortly after FinCEN concluded its
rulemaking proceedings, in April 2007,
BDA submitted a petition requesting the
immediate rescission of the Final Rule.
The following month, Stanley Au and
Delta Asia Group (Holdings) Ltd., the
owners of BDA, filed a separate petition
for rescission of the Final Rule. FinCEN
denied both petitions on September 21,
2007. On November 16, 2010, BDA
again petitioned FinCEN to repeal the
Final Rule. As part of an ongoing
dialogue between FinCEN and BDA
from 2012 through 2019, BDA agreed to
arrange for two independent reviews of
the bank, the results of which were
subsequently shared with FinCEN.
By letter dated September 26, 2019,
FinCEN ultimately denied BDA’s
November 2010 petition, providing BDA
a memorandum thoroughly explaining
its decision. In its denial, FinCEN
discussed the results of the independent
1 70
FR 55214 (Sept. 20, 2005).
2 Id. at 55217.
3 72 FR 12731 (Mar. 19, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reviews of BDA and identified the
limitations in these reviews. FinCEN
acknowledged that BDA had taken steps
to address some of the deficiencies
highlighted in the Notice of Finding and
Final Rule, but concluded that BDA had
failed to correct other significant
deficiencies. FinCEN ultimately
determined that BDA’s AML
compliance efforts remained inadequate
to address the risks identified in the
Notice of Finding and Final Rule.
In addition to petitioning FinCEN to
withdraw the Final Rule, BDA filed suit
on March 14, 2013, in the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia challenging the Notice of
Finding and the Final Rule. This
litigation was stayed for many years so
that the dialogue described above could
continue. Both FinCEN and BDA have
since agreed that there are advantages to
FinCEN’s revisiting the Final Rule and
to settling this litigation. This course of
action allows BDA to submit any
remaining additional comments and
permits FinCEN to take stock of the
present circumstances and, if
appropriate, to avail itself of the
informal rulemaking process (providing
the public with an opportunity for
notice and comment, in contrast to
action on a petition) if it decides to take
further action. As part of this settlement,
FinCEN has agreed to reassess whether
BDA is presently a financial institution
of primary money laundering concern.
BDA will be permitted to submit
comments to FinCEN regarding the
September 26, 2019, petition denial
prior to FinCEN’s engaging in any
additional Section 311 rulemaking
involving BDA.
In the event that FinCEN determines
that the imposition of any special
measures may be warranted, it will
undertake a new rulemaking effort
(including the publication of a new
notice of proposed rulemaking). Any
such proposed rule will allow for 30
days of comment, and as part of the
rulemaking proceeding, FinCEN will
make available for comment the
unclassified, non-protected material
relied upon by FinCEN in connection
with any such rulemaking. If FinCEN
determines that a final rule is
appropriate, FinCEN will publish such
a final rule 60 days following the close
of the comment period. If the extent of
submitted comments requires additional
time, or if COVID–19-related issues
hinder the agency’s ability to satisfy the
proposed timeframes, FinCEN will so
announce in the Federal Register.
III. Repeal of the Final Rule
For the reasons set forth above,
FinCEN hereby repeals the Final Rule.
E:\FR\FM\10AUR1.SGM
10AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
obligations for financial institutions
under 31 CFR 1010.654.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FinCEN is publishing a
withdrawal of the Notice of Finding.
IV. Regulatory Matters
Although Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) requires notice and an
opportunity for comment before an
agency issues a final rule as well as a
30-day delayed effective date, it
provides that an agency may dispense
with these procedures when good cause
exists. In this final rule, FinCEN has
found that public comment procedures
and delaying the effective date of the
removal of the regulation would be
contrary to the public interest. As
discussed earlier in this document,
FinCEN has agreed to reassess whether
BDA is presently a financial institution
of primary money laundering concern.
Accordingly, FinCEN has found that
good cause exists to dispense with prior
notice and comment and a delay in
effective date.
A. Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this
rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a
regulatory impact analysis is not
required.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Unfunded Mandates Act), Public Law
104–4 (March 22, 1995), requires that an
agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule
that may result in expenditure by state,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
If a budgetary impact statement is
required, section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act also requires an agency to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule. FinCEN has
determined that it is not required to
prepare a written statement under
Section 202 and has concluded that on
balance the rule provides the most cost
effective and least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objectives of
the rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FinCEN
certifies that this final regulation likely
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulatory changes in this
final rule merely remove the current
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation discontinues the
Office of Management and Budget
Control Number 1506–0041 assigned to
the final rule and, as a result, reduces
the estimated average burden of one
hour per affected financial institution,
totaling 5,000 hours. This regulation
contains no new information collection
requirements subject to review and
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d) et seq.).
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1010
Administrative practice and
procedure, Banks and banking, Brokers,
Counter-money laundering, Counterterrorism, Foreign banking.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth above, 31
CFR part 1010 is amended as follows:
PART 1010—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for 31 CFR
part 1010 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959;
31 U.S.C. 5311–5314, 5316–5332; Title III,
sec. 314, Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307; sec.
701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599.
§ 1010.655
■
[Removed]
2. Section 1010.655 is removed.
Michael Mosier,
Deputy Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2020–17143 Filed 8–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR 165
[Docket No. USCG–2018–0533]
Navigation and Navigable Waters, and
Shipping; Technical, Organizational,
and Conforming Amendments for U.S.
Coast Guard Field Districts 5, 8, 9, 11,
13, 14, and 17
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting amendments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
On February 13, 2020, the
Coast Guard published a final rule on
Navigation and Navigable Waters, and
Shipping; Technical, Organizational,
and Conforming Amendments for U.S.
Coast Guard Field Districts 5, 8, 9, 11,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48107
13, 14, and 17. Effective March 16, 2020,
that rule removed a security zone
regulation when only the section
heading for that regulation needed to be
amended. This document corrects that
error.
DATES: Effective August 10, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dominique Christianson, Coast Guard,
telephone 202–372–3856 or fax 202–
372–8405.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Correction
On February 13, 2020 the Coast Guard
published a rule in the Federal Register
(85 FR 8169), effective on March 16,
2020. Subsequent review of the rule
revealed that it removed a security zone
regulation, 33 CFR 165.809, when the
only change needed was to amend the
section heading for that regulation. Page
85 FR 8170 of the rule referred to a 2005
proposed rule (70 FR 9363) as support
for removing the security zones in
§ 165.809, but that NPRM only proposed
to ‘‘remove the Port of Port Lavaca-Point
Comfort security zone.’’ And the final
rule (70 FR 39176, 39178, July 7, 2005)
that followed the NPRM revised
§ 165.809(a) so that it maintained the
Corpus Christi Inner Harbor security
zone. That 2005 rule also used the
following section heading: § 165.809
Security Zone; Port of Corpus Christi
Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi, TX.
All the 2020 rule should have done
was to remove the reference to the Port
of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort in the
section heading. This document corrects
the error of removing the Port of Corpus
Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi
Safety Zone regulation by reinstating
§ 165.809 with the correct section
heading.
We find good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d) to make this correction effective
on its date of publication. Delaying its
effective date would increase risk of
vessel collisions as the security zone is
needed to protect a portion of the
waterway that has a high volume of
commercial vessel traffic and military
outload vessel traffic.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
Accordingly, 33 CFR part 165 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\10AUR1.SGM
10AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48105-48107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17143]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Part 1010
RIN 1506-AA83
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Repeal of Special Measure
Involving Banco Delta Asia (BDA)
AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule repeals regulations concerning Special measures
against Banco Delta Asia, which were issued pursuant to Section 311 of
the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 311). Subsequent to the issuance of this
rule, FinCEN will
[[Page 48106]]
reassess whether BDA is presently a financial institution of primary
money laundering concern and additional rulemaking is warranted.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FinCEN is publishing a
withdrawal of the finding regarding BDA, issued September 20, 2005.
DATES: Effective August 10, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Resource Center at
[email protected].
I. Statutory Background
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (USA
PATRIOT Act). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money
laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), codified at 12
U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332,
to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international
money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations
implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR chapter X. The authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to administer the BSA and its implementing
regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act grants the Secretary the
authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding
that a foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial institution, class of
transactions, or type of account is of ``primary money laundering
concern,'' to require domestic financial institutions and financial
agencies to take certain ``special measures'' to address the primary
money laundering concern. The five special measures enumerated under
Section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that defend the U.S. financial
system from money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN may impose
one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S.
financial system from these threats. To that end, special measures one
through four, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)-(b)(4), impose
additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information
reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. The
fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows the
Secretary to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or
maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts by covered
U.S. financial institutions for or on behalf of a foreign banking
institution.
Taken as a whole, Section 311 provides the Secretary with a range
of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and
terrorist financing concerns most effectively. These options provide
the authority to bring additional and necessary pressure on those
jurisdictions and institutions that pose money-laundering threats and
the ability to take steps to protect the U.S. financial system. Through
the imposition of various special measures, FinCEN can: Gain more
information about the concerned jurisdictions, financial institutions,
transactions, and accounts; monitor more effectively the respective
jurisdictions, financial institutions, transactions, and accounts; and,
ultimately, protect U.S. financial institutions from involvement with
jurisdictions, financial institutions, transactions, or accounts that
pose a money laundering concern.
II. Administrative Background
On September 20, 2005, FinCEN published a finding in the Federal
Register that reasonable grounds existed to conclude that BDA was a
foreign financial institution of primary money laundering concern
(Notice of Finding).\1\ Simultaneous with publication of the Notice of
Finding, FinCEN published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing the
imposition of the fifth special measure against BDA.\2\ On March 19,
2007, FinCEN published a final rule in the Federal Register imposing
the fifth special measure against BDA, codified at 31 CFR 103.193
(subsequently renumbered as 31 CFR 1010.655) (Final Rule).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 70 FR 55214 (Sept. 20, 2005).
\2\ Id. at 55217.
\3\ 72 FR 12731 (Mar. 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after FinCEN concluded its rulemaking proceedings, in April
2007, BDA submitted a petition requesting the immediate rescission of
the Final Rule. The following month, Stanley Au and Delta Asia Group
(Holdings) Ltd., the owners of BDA, filed a separate petition for
rescission of the Final Rule. FinCEN denied both petitions on September
21, 2007. On November 16, 2010, BDA again petitioned FinCEN to repeal
the Final Rule. As part of an ongoing dialogue between FinCEN and BDA
from 2012 through 2019, BDA agreed to arrange for two independent
reviews of the bank, the results of which were subsequently shared with
FinCEN.
By letter dated September 26, 2019, FinCEN ultimately denied BDA's
November 2010 petition, providing BDA a memorandum thoroughly
explaining its decision. In its denial, FinCEN discussed the results of
the independent reviews of BDA and identified the limitations in these
reviews. FinCEN acknowledged that BDA had taken steps to address some
of the deficiencies highlighted in the Notice of Finding and Final
Rule, but concluded that BDA had failed to correct other significant
deficiencies. FinCEN ultimately determined that BDA's AML compliance
efforts remained inadequate to address the risks identified in the
Notice of Finding and Final Rule.
In addition to petitioning FinCEN to withdraw the Final Rule, BDA
filed suit on March 14, 2013, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia challenging the Notice of Finding and the
Final Rule. This litigation was stayed for many years so that the
dialogue described above could continue. Both FinCEN and BDA have since
agreed that there are advantages to FinCEN's revisiting the Final Rule
and to settling this litigation. This course of action allows BDA to
submit any remaining additional comments and permits FinCEN to take
stock of the present circumstances and, if appropriate, to avail itself
of the informal rulemaking process (providing the public with an
opportunity for notice and comment, in contrast to action on a
petition) if it decides to take further action. As part of this
settlement, FinCEN has agreed to reassess whether BDA is presently a
financial institution of primary money laundering concern. BDA will be
permitted to submit comments to FinCEN regarding the September 26,
2019, petition denial prior to FinCEN's engaging in any additional
Section 311 rulemaking involving BDA.
In the event that FinCEN determines that the imposition of any
special measures may be warranted, it will undertake a new rulemaking
effort (including the publication of a new notice of proposed
rulemaking). Any such proposed rule will allow for 30 days of comment,
and as part of the rulemaking proceeding, FinCEN will make available
for comment the unclassified, non-protected material relied upon by
FinCEN in connection with any such rulemaking. If FinCEN determines
that a final rule is appropriate, FinCEN will publish such a final rule
60 days following the close of the comment period. If the extent of
submitted comments requires additional time, or if COVID-19-related
issues hinder the agency's ability to satisfy the proposed timeframes,
FinCEN will so announce in the Federal Register.
III. Repeal of the Final Rule
For the reasons set forth above, FinCEN hereby repeals the Final
Rule.
[[Page 48107]]
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FinCEN is publishing a
withdrawal of the Notice of Finding.
IV. Regulatory Matters
Although Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) requires notice and an opportunity for comment before an
agency issues a final rule as well as a 30-day delayed effective date,
it provides that an agency may dispense with these procedures when good
cause exists. In this final rule, FinCEN has found that public comment
procedures and delaying the effective date of the removal of the
regulation would be contrary to the public interest. As discussed
earlier in this document, FinCEN has agreed to reassess whether BDA is
presently a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.
Accordingly, FinCEN has found that good cause exists to dispense with
prior notice and comment and a delay in effective date.
A. Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a
regulatory impact analysis is not required.
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded
Mandates Act), Public Law 104-4 (March 22, 1995), requires that an
agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 202
of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule. FinCEN has determined that it is not required to
prepare a written statement under Section 202 and has concluded that on
balance the rule provides the most cost effective and least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objectives of the rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), FinCEN certifies that this final regulation likely will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulatory changes in this final rule merely remove the
current obligations for financial institutions under 31 CFR 1010.654.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation discontinues the Office of Management and Budget
Control Number 1506-0041 assigned to the final rule and, as a result,
reduces the estimated average burden of one hour per affected financial
institution, totaling 5,000 hours. This regulation contains no new
information collection requirements subject to review and approval by
the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d) et seq.).
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1010
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks and banking, Brokers,
Counter-money laundering, Counter-terrorism, Foreign banking.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth above, 31 CFR part 1010 is amended as
follows:
PART 1010--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for 31 CFR part 1010 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314,
5316-5332; Title III, sec. 314, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec.
701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
Sec. 1010.655 [Removed]
0
2. Section 1010.655 is removed.
Michael Mosier,
Deputy Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2020-17143 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P