Review of Bank Secrecy Act Regulations and Guidance, 71201-71207 [2021-27081]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
environmental impact statement is
required.
Federal Register, but websites are
subject to change over time.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
While this proposed order contains no
collection of information, it does refer to
previously approved FDA collections of
information. Therefore, clearance by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521) is not required for this guidance.
The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by the
OMB under the PRA. The collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814,
subparts A through E, have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0231; and the collections of
information in part 812 have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0078.
1. *Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices
Panel—Classification of Spinal Sphere
Devices Meeting, December 12, 2013,
available at https://wayback.archive-it.org/
7993/20170114044038/https://www.fda.gov/
downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/
CommitteesMeetingMaterials/
MedicalDevices/
MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/
OrthopaedicandRehabilitationDevicesPanel/
UCM378083.pdf.
2. Lindley, E.M., B. Levy, E.L. Burger, et
al., ‘‘Failure of the Fernstrom Ball in
Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Case of
History Repeating Itself.’’ Current
Orthopaedic Practice, 25(1): 87–91, 2014.
IX. Proposed Effective Date
FDA is proposing that any final order
based on this proposal become effective
on the date of its publication in the
Federal Register or at a later date if
stated in the final order.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
X. Opportunity To Request a Change in
Classification
Before requiring the filing of a PMA
or notice of completion of a PDP for a
device, FDA is required by section
515(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act to provide
an opportunity for interested persons to
request a change in the classification of
the device based on new information
relevant to the classification. A request
for a change in the classification of
spinal spheres for use in intervertebral
fusion procedures should be provided
in response to the proposed rule issued
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register and contain the information
required by 21 CFR 860.123, including
new information relevant to the
classification of the device.
XI. References
The following references marked with
an asterisk (*) are on display at the
Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSES) and are available for
viewing by interested persons between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday; they also are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. References
without asterisks are not on public
display at https://www.regulations.gov
because they have copyright restriction.
Some may be available at the website
address, if listed. References without
asterisks are available for viewing only
at the Dockets Management Staff. FDA
has verified the website addresses, as of
the date this document publishes in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 888
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, we propose that 21
CFR part 888 be amended as follows:
PART 888—ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 888
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 360l, 371.
2. In § 888.3085, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 888.3085 Spinal spheres for use in
intervertebral fusion procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Date premarket approval
application (PMA) or notice of
completion of product development
protocol (PDP) is required. A PMA or
notice of completion of a PDP is
required to be filed with the Food and
Drug Administration on or before [A
DATE WILL BE ADDED ON THE LAST
DAY OF THE 30TH FULL CALENDAR
MONTH AFTER THE FUTURE FINAL
REGULATION THAT CLASSIFIES THE
DEVICE INTO CLASS III IS
EFFECTIVE], for any spinal sphere for
use in intervertebral fusion procedures
as identified in paragraph (a) of this
section that was in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976, or that
has, on or before [A DATE WILL BE
ADDED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE
30TH FULL CALENDAR MONTH
AFTER THE FUTURE FINAL
REGULATION THAT CLASSIFIES THE
DEVICE INTO CLASS III IS
EFFECTIVE], been found to be
substantially equivalent to any spinal
sphere device for use in intervertebral
fusion procedures identified in
paragraph (a) of this section, that was in
commercial distribution before May 28,
1976. Any other spinal sphere device for
use in an intervertebral fusion
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71201
procedure identified in paragraph (a) of
this section shall have an approved
PMA or declared completed PDP in
effect before being placed in commercial
distribution.
Dated: December 9, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021–27139 Filed 12–14–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Chapter X
[Docket No. FINCEN–2021–0008]
Review of Bank Secrecy Act
Regulations and Guidance
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, Treasury.
ACTION: Request for information and
comment.
AGENCY:
The Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is
issuing this request for information
(RFI) to solicit comment on ways to
streamline, modernize, and update the
anti-money laundering and countering
the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT)
regime of the United States. In
particular, FinCEN seeks comment on
ways to modernize risk-based AML/CFT
regulations and guidance, issued
pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA),
so that they, on a continuing basis,
protect U.S. national security in a costeffective and efficient manner. This RFI
also supports FinCEN’s ongoing formal
review of BSA regulations and guidance
required pursuant to Section 6216 of the
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020
(the AML Act). Section 6216 requires
the Secretary of the Treasury (the
Secretary) to solicit public comment and
submit a report, in consultation with
specified stakeholders, to Congress by
January 1, 2022, that contains the
findings and determinations that result
from the formal review, including
administrative and legislative
recommendations.
SUMMARY:
Written comments on this RFI
must be received on or before February
14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Refer to Docket Number FINCEN–2021–
0008.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
71202
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
• Mail: Policy Division, Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box
39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket
Number FINCEN–2021–0008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at
1–800–767–2825 or electronically at
https://fincen.gov/contact.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Scope of the RFI
FinCEN seeks comment on ways to
streamline, modernize, and update BSA
regulations and guidance so that they,
on a continuing basis, protect U.S.
national security in a cost-effective and
efficient manner. FinCEN is particularly
interested in new and innovative
approaches to BSA compliance that
promote a risk-based approach to
protecting the financial system from
threats to national security posed by
various forms of financial crime,
including money laundering, the
financing of terrorism and proliferation,
while also providing for the reporting of
information with a high degree of
usefulness to government authorities.
FinCEN recognizes the evolving illicit
finance threat landscape and
appreciates the important role that
technology, innovation, and the efficient
application of resources to BSA
reporting play in promoting a risk-based
approach to BSA compliance. In this
context, the efficient application of
resources can refer to the prioritization
of resources by financial institutions to
provide more useful information to law
enforcement or other U.S. Government
entities, including reporting highly
useful information in a timely manner,
or reducing redundancies and
information of little use reported to law
enforcement or other U.S. Government
entities.
The review of BSA regulations and
guidance 1 required by Section 6216 of
the AML Act will support these efforts
by enhancing the protection of U.S.
national security and assisting in the
development, revision, or update of
regulations that are outdated,
redundant, or otherwise do not support
an effective and risk-based AML/CFT
framework.2 As described in the BSA,
1 FinCEN’s regulations are codified at 31 CFR
chapter X. For the purposes of this document,
‘‘guidance’’ should be interpreted broadly and
includes, for instance, all administrative rulings,
advisories, bulletins, fact sheets, responses to
frequently asked questions, and notices issued by
FinCEN and posted on FinCEN’s website.
2 The AML Act is Division F of the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116–283
(January 1, 2021). The AML Act defines the BSA as
section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1829b), chapter 2 of title 1 of Public Law 91–
508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), and subchapter II of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
AML/CFT programs should, among
other things, be reasonably designed to
assure and monitor compliance with the
BSA and be risk-based, including
ensuring that financial institutions
direct more attention and resources
toward higher-risk customers and
activities, consistent with the risk
profile of the financial institution, rather
than toward lower-risk customers and
activities.3
According to Section 6216(a), the
purposes of the review are to: (i) Ensure
the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury) provides, on a continuing
basis, for appropriate safeguards to
protect the financial system from
threats, including money laundering
and the financing of terrorism and
proliferation, to national security posed
by various forms of financial crime; (ii)
ensure that the regulations and guidance
implementing the BSA continue to
require certain reports or records that
are highly useful in countering financial
crime; and (iii) identify regulations and
guidance that may be outdated,
redundant, or otherwise do not promote
a risk-based AML/CFT compliance
regime for financial institutions, or that
do not conform with the commitments
of the United States to meet
international standards to combat
money laundering, financing of
terrorism, serious tax fraud, or other
financial crimes. Comments received in
response to this RFI will support
FinCEN’s efforts to conduct the review
required by Section 6216 of the AML
Act. Following that review, the
Secretary—in consultation with
specified stakeholders 4—is required to
make appropriate changes to the
regulations and guidance to improve, as
appropriate, the efficiency of those
provisions, and submit a report to
Congress that contains all findings and
determinations made in carrying out the
review, including administrative or
legislative recommendations.
chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code. Section
6003(1) of the AML Act.
3 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2)(B)(iv).
4 Under Section 6216(a) of the AML Act, the
Secretary is required to consult with the Federal
functional regulators, the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council, the Attorney
General, Federal law enforcement agencies, the
Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. Section 6003(3) of the AML Act
defines the term ‘‘Federal functional regulator’’ as
having: (A) The meaning given the term in section
509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C.
6809); and (B) includes any Federal regulator that
examines a financial institution for compliance
with the BSA.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Background
A. History of the BSA
Enacted in 1970, the BSA is the
principal U.S. law for the prevention of
money laundering, terrorist financing
and proliferation, and other forms of
illicit financial activity. Congress has
authorized the Secretary to administer
the BSA. The Secretary has delegated to
the Director of FinCEN the authority to
implement, administer, and enforce
compliance with the BSA and
associated regulations.5 FinCEN is
authorized to require financial
institutions or nonfinancial trades or
businesses to maintain procedures to
ensure compliance with the BSA and
the regulations promulgated thereunder
and to guard against money laundering,
the financing of terrorism, and other
forms of illicit finance.6 Statutory
amendments, most recently through the
AML Act, have expanded the scope and
range of BSA requirements and the
complexity of FinCEN’s regulations,
including the types of information
FinCEN can require financial
institutions to maintain or report.
The Money Laundering Control Act of
1986 (MLCA) 7 and the Annunzio-Wylie
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992
(Annunzio-Wylie) made money
laundering a Federal crime, amended
the BSA by strengthening sanctions for
BSA violations,8 and authorized
Treasury to require the reporting of
suspicious activities.9 Annunzio-Wylie
also authorized Treasury to issue
regulations requiring all financial
institutions, as defined in BSA
regulations, to maintain ‘‘minimum
standards’’ of an AML program.10 The
USA PATRIOT Act also ushered in an
expanded role for AML and other
financial and economic measures in
countering threats to U.S. national
security and protecting the U.S.
financial system. For example, Title III
5 Treasury
Order 180–01 (Jan. 14, 2020).
U.S.C. 5318(a)(2) (as amended by Section
6102(c)(2) of the AML Act).
7 Public Law 99–570, 100 Stat. 3207 (Oct. 27,
1986).
8 Title XV, Public Law102–550, 106 Stat. 3672
(Oct. 28, 1992), at sec. 1502 (authorizing
proceedings to terminate federal depository
institution and credit union charters when
convicted of a criminal violation of the BSA), sec.
1503 (authorizing the termination of federal deposit
insurance for federally insured, state-chartered
depository institutions, and federal share insurance
for federally insured, state-chartered credit unions,
when convicted of a criminal violation of the BSA),
sec. 1504 (authorizing the removal officers or
directors of depository institutions, and institutionaffiliated parties of federally insured credit unions,
when such parties are found to have violated a BSA
requirement).
9 Id. at sec. 1517 (authorizing Treasury to require
the reporting of suspicious transactions).
10 Id.
6 31
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of the USA PATRIOT Act further
amended the BSA by authorizing
Treasury to require financial institutions
to establish customer identification
programs and by directly requiring
financial institutions to maintain AML
programs that satisfied statutorily
mandated requirements.11
Most recently, the AML Act greatly
expanded the express purposes of the
BSA. In addition to requiring the filing
of certain highly useful reports and the
maintenance of certain highly useful
records, the express purposes of the
BSA now include, among other things:
Æ Preventing the laundering of money
and the financing of terrorism through
the establishment by financial
institutions of reasonably designed riskbased programs to combat money
laundering and the financing of
terrorism;
Æ facilitating the tracking of money
that has been sourced through criminal
activity or is intended to promote
criminal or terrorist activity; and
Æ assessing the money laundering,
terrorism finance, tax evasion, and fraud
risks to financial institutions, products,
or services to—
D protect the financial system of the
United States from criminal abuse; and
D safeguard the national security of
the United States.12
B. Regulatory Reform Initiatives Prior to
the AML Act
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Numerous provisions of the AML Act
codify and elaborate upon existing or
prior Treasury initiatives on innovation,
regulatory reform, and industry
engagement, in response to evolving
threats. These various efforts include:
The BSA Advisory Group; an
interagency AML Task Force led by
Treasury’s Under Secretary for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence; 13
a Regulatory Reform Working Group for
Treasury and the Federal Banking
11 Public Law 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26,
2001). FinCEN issued four interim final AML
program rules on April 29, 2002 for financial
institutions regulated by a Federal functional
regulator: Casinos (67 FR 21110), money services
businesses (67 FR 21114), mutual funds (67 FR
21117), and operators of credit card systems (67 FR
21121). FinCEN’s rule originally cross-referenced
the regulations of the Federal functional regulators
and provided that satisfaction of the appropriate
Federal functional regulator’s AML program rule
requirements would be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of Treasury’s rule.
12 31 U.S.C. 5311 (as amended by Section 6101(a)
of the AML Act).
13 See Treasury, Remarks of Under Secretary
David S. Cohen at the American Bankers
Association and the American Bar Association
Money Laundering Enforcement Conference, (Nov.
10, 2014), available at https://www.treasury.gov/
press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2692.aspx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
Agencies (FBAs); 14 FinCEN
Exchange; 15 studying the value of BSA
data; and, the FinCEN Innovation Hours
Initiative.16 FinCEN has also issued
final rules in recent years that have
aimed to close AML regulatory gaps that
represent vulnerabilities in the U.S.
financial system that illicit actors could
exploit.17 In addition, to fulfill its
obligations under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, FinCEN issued multiple
notices soliciting input from the public
in an effort to better understand and
estimate the burden and cost of various
BSA regulations.18 Many of the
comments that FinCEN received are
relevant to the formal review required
under Section 6216 of the AML Act.
C. Technology and Application of the
BSA
New and innovative approaches in
the financial sector in recent years have
resulted in the development of new
business models, products, and services,
fueled in part by rapid advances in
technology. As innovation has
presented new business and other
opportunities, illicit finance threats
have also evolved and present new
challenges for financial institutions to
14 The FBAs include the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union
Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency.
15 See FinCEN, FinCEN Exchange, available at
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/financial-crimeenforcement-network-exchange.
16 See FinCEN, FinCEN’s Innovation Hours
Program, available at https://www.fincen.gov/
resources/fincens-innovation-hours-program.
17 See FinCEN, Final rule—Customer Due
Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions,
81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016); see also FinCEN, Final
rule—Customer Identification Programs, AntiMoney Laundering Programs, and Beneficial
Ownership Requirements for Banks Lacking a
Federal Functional Regulator, 85 FR 57129 (Sept.
15, 2020).
18 See, e.g., FinCEN, Agency Information
Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment
Request; Renewal Without Change of the Bank
Secrecy Act Reports of Transactions in Currency
Regulations at 31 CFR 1010.310 Through 1010.314,
31 CFR 1021.311, and 31 CFR 1021.313, and
FinCEN Report 112—Currency Transaction Report,
85 FR 29022 (May 14, 2020); FinCEN, Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without
Change of the Bank Secrecy Act Reports by
Financial Institutions of Suspicious Transactions at
31 CFR 1020.320, 1021.320, 1022.320, 1023.320,
1024.320, 1025.320, 1026.320, and 1029.320, and
FinCEN Report 111—Suspicious Activity Report, 85
FR 31598 (May 26, 2020); FinCEN, Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without
Change of Anti-Money Laundering Programs for
Certain Financial Institutions, 85 FR 49418 (Aug.
13, 2020); and FinCEN, Agency Information
Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment
Request; Renewal Without Change of the Customer
Identification Program Regulatory Requirements for
Certain Financial Institutions, 85 FR 49425 (Aug.
13, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71203
comply with BSA obligations. FinCEN
recognizes the need to consider how to
adapt the BSA’s regulatory requirements
to better address illicit finance threats
that have changed considerably in
scope, nature, and impact since the
initial passage of the BSA. FinCEN also
recognizes that innovation and
technological advancements can
enhance the ability of financial
institutions to comply with their BSA
obligations, making it easier to collect
information that may be highly useful in
combatting a variety of financial crimes,
and for U.S. Government authorities to
better analyze the information reported
by financial institutions.
III. Requirements Under Section 6216
of the AML Act
A. Safeguards To Protect the Financial
System From Threats
Section 6216 of the AML Act directs
FinCEN to review BSA regulations and
guidance to ensure that Treasury
provides, on a continuing basis, for
appropriate safeguards to protect the
financial system from threats to national
security posed by various forms of
financial crime, including money
laundering and the financing of
terrorism and proliferation.19 To meet
this objective, FinCEN is soliciting input
regarding financial services and related
activity that present risk of exploitation
by illicit actors or otherwise present a
risk to the U.S. financial system but
might not be addressed, in whole or in
part, by existing regulations. At the
same time, FinCEN seeks comment on
whether these risks can be addressed by
new or amended approaches toward
AML program rule, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that protect
national security and safeguard the U.S.
financial system while minimizing
regulatory burden. In addition, FinCEN
seeks comment identifying BSA
regulations or guidance where the
present safeguards do not effectively
mitigate the risks they are intended to
prevent or mitigate. Specifically,
FinCEN seeks to understand whether
AML program rule, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements are sufficient to
prevent or mitigate the serious risks
they are intended to address.
FinCEN views this objective as
separate from the objective to identify
BSA regulations and guidance that do
not promote a risk-based approach,
which is described in section C below.
For this objective, FinCEN is soliciting
input from the public regarding: (i)
Threats to the financial system and to
national security that are not adequately
19 Section
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
6216(a)(1)(A) of the AML Act.
15DEP1
71204
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
addressed by BSA regulations and
guidance; and (ii) regulatory safeguards
that FinCEN should implement via
regulation or guidance to better protect
the financial system from such threats.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Reports and Records That Are Highly
Useful in Countering Financial Crime
Section 6216 also directs FinCEN to
evaluate BSA regulations and guidance
to ensure that they continue to require
certain reports or records that are highly
useful in countering financial crimes.20
The purposes of the BSA include
requiring reports or records that are
highly useful in criminal, tax,
regulatory, or intelligence matters, and
preventing a variety of financial crime,
including money laundering and the
financing of terrorism.21 FinCEN is
authorized to require financial
institutions or nonfinancial trades or
businesses to maintain procedures to
ensure compliance with the BSA and
the regulations implementing it, and to
guard against money laundering, the
financing of terrorism, and other forms
of illicit finance.22 The BSA and
FinCEN’s implementing regulations
currently require financial institutions,
nonfinancial trades and businesses, and
individuals to file a variety of reports,
including, for example, suspicious
activity reports (SARs), currency
transaction reports (CTRs), reports of
certain domestic coin and currency
transactions (Form 8300s), and reports
of foreign bank and financial accounts
(FBARs). In addition, under 31 U.S.C.
5326(a), if the Secretary finds that
reasonable grounds exist for concluding
that additional recordkeeping and
reporting are necessary to carry out the
purposes of the BSA or to prevent
evasions thereof, the Secretary may
issue an order requiring any domestic
financial institution or nonfinancial
trade or business or group of domestic
financial institutions or nonfinancial
trades or businesses in a geographic area
to obtain, record, and report information
concerning certain transactions (as the
Secretary may describe in such order).
The second objective of Section 6216
essentially poses two questions. First,
are the reports or records that are
currently required to be filed or
maintained highly useful in countering
financial crime? Second, are there any
reports or records that are not currently
required to be filed or maintained that,
if required, would be highly useful in
countering financial crime? This
20 Section
6216(a)(1)(B) of the AML Act.
U.S.C. 5311 (as amended by Section 6101(a)
of the AML Act).
22 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(2) (as amended by Section
6102(c)(2) of the AML Act).
21 31
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
objective also poses similar questions
with respect to the BSA’s numerous
recordkeeping requirements—namely,
whether the current requirements
mandate any recordkeeping that is not
highly useful in countering financial
crime, and whether different or
additional recordkeeping would be
highly useful in countering financial
crime.
C. Identify BSA Regulations and
Guidance That May Be Outdated,
Redundant, or Do Not Promote a RiskBased AML/CFT Regime for Financial
Institutions
Section 6216 also requires FinCEN to
evaluate BSA regulations and guidance
that may be outdated, redundant, or
otherwise do not promote a risk-based
AML and CFT compliance regime for
financial institutions.23
FinCEN considers outdated
regulations for the purposes of this RFI
to include regulations that: (i) No longer
promote the maintenance of risk-based
safeguards that adequately address the
regulation’s original purpose; or (ii) are
no longer useful or appropriate. That is,
if reports filed consistent with a
regulation no longer provides highly
useful information to the government, or
if a regulation once appropriately
addressed a significant risk but no
longer does so, that regulation is
outdated. Outdated regulations would
also include regulations that do not
promote a risk-based approach to AML/
CFT compliance by failing to take into
account innovation or technological
advancements in the financial system,
or are obsolete in light of subsequent
statutory or regulatory changes.
FinCEN considers redundant
regulations for the purpose of this RFI
to include BSA regulations that: (i)
Impose requirements on regulated
entities that are identical to, or
significantly overlap with, the
requirements imposed by other BSA
regulations; or (ii) were issued under a
different statutory authority, but for
which it is not possible to comply with
both mandates by taking one set of
actions. Regulations imposing such
requirements will not be considered
redundant to the extent that fully
satisfying one requirement under one
framework fully satisfies the other
requirement as well.
Regulations Failing to Promote a RiskBased Approach: FinCEN looked at
several sources to determine how BSA
regulations and guidance might fail to
promote a risk-based AML/CFT regime
for financial institutions, for the
purpose of this RFI, including the 2018
23 Section
PO 00000
6216(a)(1)(C)(i) of the AML Act.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
National Money Laundering Risk
Assessment (NMLRA),24 FinCEN’s
AML/CFT National Priorities,25 and
guidance from the Financial Action
Task Force (FATF),26 the international
standard-setting body on combatting
money laundering and the financing of
terrorism and proliferation. The NMLRA
in particular provides definitions of
several key concepts that can offer
helpful clarification in connection with
the Section 6216 review:
Threat: The NMLRA uses this term for
predicate crimes associated with money
laundering.27 The NMLRA deems the
environment in which predicate
offenses are committed and criminal
proceeds generated as being relevant to
understanding why, in some cases,
specific crimes are associated with
specific money laundering methods.
24 See Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk
Assessment, (Dec. 20, 2018), at page 6, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/
2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf; see also Treasury, National
Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, (Dec. 20,
2018), available at https://home.treasury.gov/
system/files/136/2018ntfra_12182018.pdf; see also
Treasury, National Proliferation Financing Risk
Assessment, (Dec. 20, 2018), available at https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018npfra_12_
18.pdf.
25 FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering and
Countering the Financing of Terrorism Priorities,
(June 30, 2021), available at https://www.fincen.gov/
sites/default/files/shared/AML_
CFT%20Priorities%20
(June%2030%2C%202021).pdf.
26 The FATF is a member-led taskforce
established in 1989 by the Group of 7 (G7). Today
it has 39 members, and more than 200 jurisdictions
have committed to implementing the FATF
standards and are assessed against them by the
FATF and/or one of nine FATF-style regional
bodies. Through its membership in the G7 and the
Group of 20 (G20), the United States has also signed
onto numerous G7 and G20 commitments to
effectively implement the FATF standards. In 2013,
2019 and 2021, FATF issued guidelines and
standards for the assessment of systemic exposures
to the risks of money laundering, terrorist financing,
and proliferation financing. According to these
guidelines, a systemic risk assessment is the result
of a process, based on a methodology agreed by
those parties involved, that attempts to identify,
analyze, and understand the combination of
vulnerabilities, threats, and consequences affecting
a regulated subject, event, or activity. See FATF,
Guidance on National Money Laundering and
Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, (Feb. 2013), at
page 6, Introduction and Terminology, Section 1.3Key concepts and terms relevant to a money
laundering risk assessment, available at https://
www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/content/images/
national_ml_tf_risk_assessment.pdf; see also FATF,
Guidance on Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment,
(Mar. 2019), at pages 7–9 for terminology relevant
to a terrorist financing risk assessment, available at
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/
reports/Terrorist-Financing-Risk-AssessmentGuidance.pdf; see also FATF, Guidance on
Proliferation Risk Assessment and Mitigation, (June
2021), at pages 9–10 for key terminology, available
at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/
reports/Guidance-Proliferation-Financing-RiskAssessment-Mitigation.pdf.
27 These predicate crimes are enumerated at 18
U.S.C. 1956(c)(7).
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Vulnerability: The NMLRA uses this
term for circumstances or situations that
facilitate or create the opportunity for
money laundering. A vulnerability may
relate to a specific financial sector or
product, or a weakness in regulation,
supervision, or enforcement. A
vulnerability may also reflect unique
circumstances pursuant to which it may
be difficult to distinguish legal from
illegal activity. The methods that allow
for the most amount of money to be
laundered most effectively or most
quickly present the greatest potential
vulnerabilities.
Risk: The NMLRA conceives of risk as
a function of threat and vulnerability.
Risk represents a synthesis, taking into
consideration the effect of mitigating
measures including regulation,
supervision, and enforcement.
The NMLRA also informed Treasury’s
2020 National Strategy for Combating
Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing in
considering approaches to risk.
According to that strategy, a risk-based
approach in the context of AML/CFT
means allocating resources and
implementing measures to prevent or
mitigate illicit finance in a way that
takes into account identified and well
understood risks.28 Further, in 2019
FinCEN and the FBAs issued a Joint
Statement on Risk-Focused BSA/AML
Supervision noting that risk-based
compliance programs enable the
allocation of compliance resources
commensurate with risk.29 The goal of
the risk-based approach is to establish
and maintain AML/CFT programs
proportionate to the risk present in
financial institutions based on
customers and activities. It focuses
available resources in the areas of
highest risk in order to have the greatest
impact, while reducing the resources
devoted to activities carrying lower risk.
For purposes of this RFI, when
attempting to identify regulations and
guidance that do not promote a riskbased AML/CFT regime for financial
institutions, commenters are encouraged
28 See Treasury, 2020 National Strategy for
Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing, at
pages 6–7, available at https://home.treasury.gov/
system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-CounterIllicit-Financev2.pdf; see also FATF, FATF
Recommendations: International Standards on
Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing
of Terrorism & Proliferation, (updated Oct. 2021),
page 31, Interpretive Note for FATF
Recommendation 1 (describing the risk-based
approach), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/
media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/
FATFRecommendations2012.pdf.
29 See FinCEN, Joint Statement on Risk Focused
Bank Secrecy Act Anti Money Laundering
Supervision, (July 22, 2019), available at https://
www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/
JointStatementonRisk-FocusedBankSecrecyActAnti-MoneyLaunderingSupervisionFINAL1.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
to identify regulations and guidance that
discourage or hinder financial
institutions from using or allocating
resources commensurate with risk.
D. Identify BSA Regulations and
Guidance That Do Not Conform With
International Standards To Combat
Financial Crime
Section 6216 requires FinCEN to
identify regulations and guidance that
do not conform to commitments of the
United States to meet international
standards to combat money laundering,
financing of terrorism, serious tax fraud,
or other financial crimes.30 Preeminent
among such standards are the FATF
Recommendations that promote
effective implementation of legal,
regulatory and operational measures for
combating money laundering, terrorist
financing, and other related threats to
the integrity of the international
financial system.31 FATF monitors
countries’ progress in implementing the
FATF standards through mutual
evaluations; reviews money laundering
and terrorist financing techniques and
counter-measures; and promotes the
adoption and implementation of the
FATF standards globally.32 Given their
international recognition as standards
for AML, CFT, and countering the
financing of proliferation, the FATF
Recommendations will factor into how
Treasury approaches meeting this
objective under Section 6216.
FATF published its most recent
mutual evaluation of the United States
in December 2016 33 and, in March
2020, issued a follow-up report.34 The
purpose of this third follow-up report
was to assess the United States’ progress
in addressing certain technical
compliance deficiencies identified in
the 2016 Mutual Evaluation Report,
most notably relating to customer due
diligence obligations, and to analyze the
United States’ progress in implementing
new requirements relating to FATF
30 Section
6216(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the AML Act.
FATF, FATF Recommendations,—
International Standards on Combatting Money
Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism &
Proliferation (‘‘FATF Recommendations’’), (updated
Oct. 2021), at page 7, available at https://www.fatfgafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/
pdfs/FATFRecommendations2012.pdf
32 See FATF, FATF Recommendations, at page 8.
33 See FATF, Anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorist financing measures—United
States, Fourth Round Mutual Evaluation Report,
(2016), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/
publications/mutualevaluations/documents/merunited-states-2016.html.
34 See FATF, Anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorist financing measures—United
States, 3rd Enhanced Follow-up Report & Technical
Compliance Re-Rating, (2020), available at https://
www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/
fur/Follow-Up-Report-United-States-March2020.pdf.
31 See
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71205
Recommendations that have changed
since the end of the 2016 Mutual
Evaluation.
E. Make Changes to BSA Regulations
and Guidance To Improve Efficiency
Finally, Section 6216 requires FinCEN
to make changes, as appropriate, to
regulations and guidance to improve the
efficiency of those provisions.35 FinCEN
is asking the public to identify specific
changes to BSA regulations and
guidance that would make them more
efficient. Efficiency in this context can
refer to financial institutions focusing
resources on providing information that
is more useful to law enforcement,
reporting highly useful information in a
timely manner, or reducing
redundancies and information of little
use to law enforcement. As part of this
process, FinCEN requests comment on
regulations and guidance that do not
support timely and cost-effective
compliance with BSA obligations that
produces highly useful information for
law enforcement or U.S. Government
entities.
IV. Questions for Comment
A. Safeguards To Protect the Financial
System From Threats
1. The objective of Section
6216(a)(1)(A) of the AML Act is to
ensure that Treasury provides, on a
continuing basis, for appropriate
safeguards to protect the financial
system from threats to national security
posed by various forms of financial
crime. Are there any threats,
vulnerabilities, or risks that you think
Treasury is unaware of, or that you
think Treasury is not responding to with
sufficient and appropriate safeguards? If
so, please identify the threats, along
with any suggestions you have for how
Treasury might better identify and
respond to them, including any
safeguards that Treasury should
implement.
2. Do AML program requirements for
financial institutions sufficiently
address the threats, vulnerabilities, and
risks faced by the U.S. financial system?
If not, what changes do you recommend
to ensure that AML program
requirements adequately and effectively
safeguard U.S. national security?
B. Reports and Records That Are Highly
Useful in Countering Financial Crime
3. Are there BSA reporting or
recordkeeping requirements that you
believe do not provide information that
is highly useful in countering financial
crimes? If so, what reports or records,
and why? Conversely, are there reports
35 Section
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
6216(a)(2) of the AML Act.
15DEP1
71206
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
or records not currently required that
would be highly useful? If so, what
reports and records, and why?
4. Are there specific changes to BSA
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
that would provide information that is
more useful to law enforcement in
countering financial crimes or allow
financial institutions to better
understand what information to report?
If so, which reports or records, and what
changes do you recommend?
5. How can FinCEN ensure that BSA
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are highly useful in
countering financial crimes on a
continuing basis? For example, should
FinCEN conduct certain studies or
analyze certain data on a regular basis
to ensure BSA reports and records
continue to be highly useful in
countering financial crimes?
6. Should FinCEN consider certain
regular or automatic updates to specific
BSA regulations to ensure the reports or
records they require continue to be
highly useful in countering financial
crimes? For example, should FinCEN
more regularly update certain BSA
reports’ fields based on frequency of
use, terms included, or other relevant
factors and trends identified? What
other events might necessitate such
updates?
7. Would automatically updating
certain BSA reporting or recordkeeping
requirements streamline or reduce the
potential compliance burden without
sacrificing the usefulness of the required
BSA reports and records in countering
financial crimes? If so, what other
requirements might benefit from
automatic updates? For example, should
automatic updates to dollar thresholds
for certain BSA reports and records
occur to account for inflation
adjustments? What other circumstances
might necessitate automatic updates?
8. Should FinCEN consider periodic
adjustments, such as customized
thresholds, to BSA regulations and
guidance to account for changes in risk,
such as changes in geographic risk?
What circumstances might necessitate
customized thresholds and why?
C. Identify BSA Regulations and
Guidance That May Be Outdated,
Redundant, or Do Not Promote a RiskBased AML/CFT Regime for Financial
Institutions
i. Outdated Regulations
9. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance that do not promote risk-based
safeguards or that no longer fulfill their
original purpose? If so, which
regulations or guidance, and what
changes do you recommend?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
10. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance that are obsolete or no longer
provide useful information to the
government? Alternatively, are there
any BSA regulations or guidance that
target risks that no longer exists? If so,
which regulations or guidance, and
what changes do you recommend?
11. Are there any BSA regulations or
guidance that are obsolete because of
changes in compliance business
practices and/or technological
innovation in the financial system or
elsewhere? If so, how should FinCEN
address this?
12. Do FinCEN’s regulations and
guidance sufficiently allow financial
institutions to incorporate innovative
and technological approaches to BSA
compliance? If not, how can FinCEN
facilitate greater use of these tools,
while ensuring that appropriate
safeguards are in place and highly
useful information continues to be
reported to government authorities?
ii. Redundant Regulations
13. Are there BSA regulations that
impose requirements identical to or
significantly overlapping with
requirements imposed by other BSA
regulations? If so, which BSA
regulations, and what amendments do
you recommend?
14. Are there BSA regulations that
impose requirements that are identical
to or significantly overlap with
requirements imposed under another
regulatory regime? If so, which BSA
regulations, and which other regulatory
framework?
15. Are there other provisions under
the AML Act, or the BSA as amended
by the AML Act, that you think will
assist in eliminating redundant BSA
regulations and guidance? If so, which
sections of the AML Act or amended
BSA, and why?
iii. Other Regulations That Do Not
Promote a Risk-Based Regime
16. Do any BSA regulations or
guidance require or encourage resources
be allocated inefficiently based on the
level of risk that the regulations or
guidance are intended to prevent or
mitigate? If so, which regulations or
guidance, and what changes would you
recommend FinCEN make?
17. Aside from any issues mentioned
in response to the questions above, are
there other BSA regulations or guidance
that do not promote a risk-based
approach? If so, which regulations or
guidance, how do they fail to promote
a risk-based regime, and what changes
would you recommend FinCEN make?
Please distinguish as clearly as possible
between issues that result from the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
content of a regulation or guidance, and
issues that result from compliance
supervision, examinations, or audits.
18. How else can FinCEN reaffirm that
BSA regulations and guidance are
intended to foster a risk-based
approach?
19. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance for which applying a riskbased approach is challenging? If so,
which regulations or guidance, what are
the challenges, and how might FinCEN
reduce or eliminate those challenges?
20. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance that are highly effective at
promoting a risk-based approach such
that they should be used as a model for
other BSA regulations and guidance? If
so, which regulations or guidance, and
why?
D. Identify BSA Regulations and
Guidance That Do Not Conform With
International Standards To Combat
Financial Crime
21. Do any BSA regulations or
guidance fail to conform with U.S.
commitments to meet international
standards, or do not fully implement
international standards, including the
FATF Recommendations? If so, which
regulations or guidance, and why?
22. Which deficiencies identified in
the FATF’s 2016 U.S. Mutual Evaluation
Report and addressed in the third
Follow-Up Report most significantly
prevent the United States from fully
implementing an effective and riskbased approach? What changes to
regulations or guidance would you
recommend to address the deficiencies
identified?
E. Identify Changes to BSA Regulations
and Guidance To Improve Efficiency
23. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance that should be amended to
improve their efficiency? If so, which
regulations or guidance, and what
amendments do you recommend?
24. Are there BSA regulations or
guidance that are unclear or are overly
burdensome in comparison to the risk
posed? If so, which regulations or
guidance? To what do you attribute the
additional burden, and in what way (if
any) is the burden excessive compared
to the benefits of the regulation? Could
the burden be reduced without making
the regulations or guidance less
effective? If so, how?
25. Aside from any regulations or
guidance identified in response to
previous questions, are there any BSA
regulations or guidance with which you
believe compliance provides minimal or
no benefit to the government, thus
making any compliance burden
excessive? If so, which regulations or
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
guidance, and would you propose to
amend or repeal them? If amend, how?
And if repeal, why repeal rather than
amend?
26. In what ways could BSA
regulations or guidance be more
efficient in light of innovative
approaches and new technologies. For
should any BSA regulations or guidance
account for technological
advancements, such as digital
identification, machine learning, and
artificial intelligence? If so, how?
V. Conclusion
Conducting the formal review
required under Section 6216 of the AML
Act will assist FinCEN in modernizing
and streamlining BSA regulations and
guidance to ensure that they continue
to: (i) Support the purposes and goals of
the BSA and the AML Act, and (ii)
safeguard the U.S. financial system. The
formal review will also allow FinCEN to
identify and, as appropriate, revise
regulations and guidance that do not
promote a risk-based AML/CFT regime
for financial institutions, are not in
conformity with international standards,
or are outdated, redundant, or
inefficient. In addition, the formal
review will assist FinCEN in identifying
recommendations for administrative
and legislative changes to BSA
regulations and guidance. FinCEN seeks
input from the public on the questions
set forth above, including from
regulated parties; state, local, and Tribal
governments; law enforcement;
regulators; other consumers of BSA
data; and any other interested parties.
We encourage all interested parties to
provide their views.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2021–27081 Filed 12–14–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0148]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Definition—Supporting
Effective Educator Development
Program
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed definition.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) proposes to establish a
definition for the Supporting Effective
Educator Development (SEED) program,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Dec 14, 2021
Jkt 256001
Assistance Listing Number 84.423A. We
propose to define ‘‘national nonprofit
entity,’’ for the purpose of clarifying the
SEED program eligibility requirements.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before January 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments submitted by fax or by email
or those submitted after the comment
period. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘Help.’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about the proposed
definition, address them to Christine
Miller, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C152
Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy is to make all comments received
from members of the public available for
public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Miller, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 3C152, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202)260–7350. Email:
christine.miller@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding the
proposed definition. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in
developing the final definition, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific
section of the proposed definition that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71207
definition. Please let us know of any
further ways we could reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits
while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of our programs.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about the proposed definition by
accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person. Please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make
arrangements to inspect the comments
in person.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for the proposed definition. If
you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of accommodation or
auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Program Authority: Section 2242 of
the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6672).
Proposed Definition:
Background: Section 2242 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA),
provides that eligible entities for awards
under the SEED program include
national nonprofit entities with a
demonstrated record of raising student
academic achievement, graduation rates,
and rates of higher education
attendance, matriculation, or
completion, or of effectiveness in
providing preparation and professional
development activities and programs for
teachers, principals, or other school
leaders. We propose to define ‘‘national
nonprofit entity,’’ for purposes of this
eligibility requirement, to allow
potential applicants to determine their
eligibility for a grant under this program
more readily, have a clear
understanding of the information they
must provide to establish eligibility, and
allow the Department to make decisions
on applicant eligibility more effectively
and efficiently. Our experience with
administering the fiscal year (FY) 2018
and FY 2020 SEED competitions,
including feedback from applicants and
funded grantees, demonstrates the need
to define the term ‘‘national nonprofit
entity’’ and provide more transparency
regarding applicant eligibility
requirements. The proposed definition
incorporates the definition of
‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 77.1(c) but
also clarifies how an entity would
demonstrate that its work is ‘‘national’’
in scope. The proposed definition
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71201-71207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27081]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
31 CFR Chapter X
[Docket No. FINCEN-2021-0008]
Review of Bank Secrecy Act Regulations and Guidance
AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.
ACTION: Request for information and comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing
this request for information (RFI) to solicit comment on ways to
streamline, modernize, and update the anti-money laundering and
countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime of the United
States. In particular, FinCEN seeks comment on ways to modernize risk-
based AML/CFT regulations and guidance, issued pursuant to the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA), so that they, on a continuing basis, protect U.S.
national security in a cost-effective and efficient manner. This RFI
also supports FinCEN's ongoing formal review of BSA regulations and
guidance required pursuant to Section 6216 of the Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2020 (the AML Act). Section 6216 requires the Secretary of the
Treasury (the Secretary) to solicit public comment and submit a report,
in consultation with specified stakeholders, to Congress by January 1,
2022, that contains the findings and determinations that result from
the formal review, including administrative and legislative
recommendations.
DATES: Written comments on this RFI must be received on or before
February 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Refer to Docket Number
FINCEN-2021-0008.
[[Page 71202]]
Mail: Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-
2021-0008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section
at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at https://fincen.gov/contact.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Scope of the RFI
FinCEN seeks comment on ways to streamline, modernize, and update
BSA regulations and guidance so that they, on a continuing basis,
protect U.S. national security in a cost-effective and efficient
manner. FinCEN is particularly interested in new and innovative
approaches to BSA compliance that promote a risk-based approach to
protecting the financial system from threats to national security posed
by various forms of financial crime, including money laundering, the
financing of terrorism and proliferation, while also providing for the
reporting of information with a high degree of usefulness to government
authorities. FinCEN recognizes the evolving illicit finance threat
landscape and appreciates the important role that technology,
innovation, and the efficient application of resources to BSA reporting
play in promoting a risk-based approach to BSA compliance. In this
context, the efficient application of resources can refer to the
prioritization of resources by financial institutions to provide more
useful information to law enforcement or other U.S. Government
entities, including reporting highly useful information in a timely
manner, or reducing redundancies and information of little use reported
to law enforcement or other U.S. Government entities.
The review of BSA regulations and guidance \1\ required by Section
6216 of the AML Act will support these efforts by enhancing the
protection of U.S. national security and assisting in the development,
revision, or update of regulations that are outdated, redundant, or
otherwise do not support an effective and risk-based AML/CFT
framework.\2\ As described in the BSA, AML/CFT programs should, among
other things, be reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance
with the BSA and be risk-based, including ensuring that financial
institutions direct more attention and resources toward higher-risk
customers and activities, consistent with the risk profile of the
financial institution, rather than toward lower-risk customers and
activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FinCEN's regulations are codified at 31 CFR chapter X. For
the purposes of this document, ``guidance'' should be interpreted
broadly and includes, for instance, all administrative rulings,
advisories, bulletins, fact sheets, responses to frequently asked
questions, and notices issued by FinCEN and posted on FinCEN's
website.
\2\ The AML Act is Division F of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law
116-283 (January 1, 2021). The AML Act defines the BSA as section 21
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b), chapter 2 of
title 1 of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), and
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code. Section
6003(1) of the AML Act.
\3\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Section 6216(a), the purposes of the review are to:
(i) Ensure the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provides, on a
continuing basis, for appropriate safeguards to protect the financial
system from threats, including money laundering and the financing of
terrorism and proliferation, to national security posed by various
forms of financial crime; (ii) ensure that the regulations and guidance
implementing the BSA continue to require certain reports or records
that are highly useful in countering financial crime; and (iii)
identify regulations and guidance that may be outdated, redundant, or
otherwise do not promote a risk-based AML/CFT compliance regime for
financial institutions, or that do not conform with the commitments of
the United States to meet international standards to combat money
laundering, financing of terrorism, serious tax fraud, or other
financial crimes. Comments received in response to this RFI will
support FinCEN's efforts to conduct the review required by Section 6216
of the AML Act. Following that review, the Secretary--in consultation
with specified stakeholders \4\--is required to make appropriate
changes to the regulations and guidance to improve, as appropriate, the
efficiency of those provisions, and submit a report to Congress that
contains all findings and determinations made in carrying out the
review, including administrative or legislative recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under Section 6216(a) of the AML Act, the Secretary is
required to consult with the Federal functional regulators, the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Attorney
General, Federal law enforcement agencies, the Director of National
Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Section 6003(3) of the AML Act
defines the term ``Federal functional regulator'' as having: (A) The
meaning given the term in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(15 U.S.C. 6809); and (B) includes any Federal regulator that
examines a financial institution for compliance with the BSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. History of the BSA
Enacted in 1970, the BSA is the principal U.S. law for the
prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation,
and other forms of illicit financial activity. Congress has authorized
the Secretary to administer the BSA. The Secretary has delegated to the
Director of FinCEN the authority to implement, administer, and enforce
compliance with the BSA and associated regulations.\5\ FinCEN is
authorized to require financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or
businesses to maintain procedures to ensure compliance with the BSA and
the regulations promulgated thereunder and to guard against money
laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other forms of illicit
finance.\6\ Statutory amendments, most recently through the AML Act,
have expanded the scope and range of BSA requirements and the
complexity of FinCEN's regulations, including the types of information
FinCEN can require financial institutions to maintain or report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Treasury Order 180-01 (Jan. 14, 2020).
\6\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(2) (as amended by Section 6102(c)(2) of
the AML Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) \7\ and the
Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992 (Annunzio-Wylie) made
money laundering a Federal crime, amended the BSA by strengthening
sanctions for BSA violations,\8\ and authorized Treasury to require the
reporting of suspicious activities.\9\ Annunzio-Wylie also authorized
Treasury to issue regulations requiring all financial institutions, as
defined in BSA regulations, to maintain ``minimum standards'' of an AML
program.\10\ The USA PATRIOT Act also ushered in an expanded role for
AML and other financial and economic measures in countering threats to
U.S. national security and protecting the U.S. financial system. For
example, Title III
[[Page 71203]]
of the USA PATRIOT Act further amended the BSA by authorizing Treasury
to require financial institutions to establish customer identification
programs and by directly requiring financial institutions to maintain
AML programs that satisfied statutorily mandated requirements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (Oct. 27, 1986).
\8\ Title XV, Public Law102-550, 106 Stat. 3672 (Oct. 28, 1992),
at sec. 1502 (authorizing proceedings to terminate federal
depository institution and credit union charters when convicted of a
criminal violation of the BSA), sec. 1503 (authorizing the
termination of federal deposit insurance for federally insured,
state-chartered depository institutions, and federal share insurance
for federally insured, state-chartered credit unions, when convicted
of a criminal violation of the BSA), sec. 1504 (authorizing the
removal officers or directors of depository institutions, and
institution-affiliated parties of federally insured credit unions,
when such parties are found to have violated a BSA requirement).
\9\ Id. at sec. 1517 (authorizing Treasury to require the
reporting of suspicious transactions).
\10\ Id.
\11\ Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001). FinCEN
issued four interim final AML program rules on April 29, 2002 for
financial institutions regulated by a Federal functional regulator:
Casinos (67 FR 21110), money services businesses (67 FR 21114),
mutual funds (67 FR 21117), and operators of credit card systems (67
FR 21121). FinCEN's rule originally cross-referenced the regulations
of the Federal functional regulators and provided that satisfaction
of the appropriate Federal functional regulator's AML program rule
requirements would be deemed to satisfy the requirements of
Treasury's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, the AML Act greatly expanded the express purposes of
the BSA. In addition to requiring the filing of certain highly useful
reports and the maintenance of certain highly useful records, the
express purposes of the BSA now include, among other things:
[cir] Preventing the laundering of money and the financing of
terrorism through the establishment by financial institutions of
reasonably designed risk-based programs to combat money laundering and
the financing of terrorism;
[cir] facilitating the tracking of money that has been sourced
through criminal activity or is intended to promote criminal or
terrorist activity; and
[cir] assessing the money laundering, terrorism finance, tax
evasion, and fraud risks to financial institutions, products, or
services to--
[ssquf] protect the financial system of the United States from
criminal abuse; and
[ssquf] safeguard the national security of the United States.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 31 U.S.C. 5311 (as amended by Section 6101(a) of the AML
Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Reform Initiatives Prior to the AML Act
Numerous provisions of the AML Act codify and elaborate upon
existing or prior Treasury initiatives on innovation, regulatory
reform, and industry engagement, in response to evolving threats. These
various efforts include: The BSA Advisory Group; an interagency AML
Task Force led by Treasury's Under Secretary for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence; \13\ a Regulatory Reform Working Group for
Treasury and the Federal Banking Agencies (FBAs); \14\ FinCEN Exchange;
\15\ studying the value of BSA data; and, the FinCEN Innovation Hours
Initiative.\16\ FinCEN has also issued final rules in recent years that
have aimed to close AML regulatory gaps that represent vulnerabilities
in the U.S. financial system that illicit actors could exploit.\17\ In
addition, to fulfill its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
FinCEN issued multiple notices soliciting input from the public in an
effort to better understand and estimate the burden and cost of various
BSA regulations.\18\ Many of the comments that FinCEN received are
relevant to the formal review required under Section 6216 of the AML
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Treasury, Remarks of Under Secretary David S. Cohen at
the American Bankers Association and the American Bar Association
Money Laundering Enforcement Conference, (Nov. 10, 2014), available
at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2692.aspx.
\14\ The FBAs include the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.
\15\ See FinCEN, FinCEN Exchange, available at https://www.fincen.gov/resources/financial-crime-enforcement-network-exchange.
\16\ See FinCEN, FinCEN's Innovation Hours Program, available at
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/fincens-innovation-hours-program.
\17\ See FinCEN, Final rule--Customer Due Diligence Requirements
for Financial Institutions, 81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016); see also
FinCEN, Final rule--Customer Identification Programs, Anti-Money
Laundering Programs, and Beneficial Ownership Requirements for Banks
Lacking a Federal Functional Regulator, 85 FR 57129 (Sept. 15,
2020).
\18\ See, e.g., FinCEN, Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without
Change of the Bank Secrecy Act Reports of Transactions in Currency
Regulations at 31 CFR 1010.310 Through 1010.314, 31 CFR 1021.311,
and 31 CFR 1021.313, and FinCEN Report 112--Currency Transaction
Report, 85 FR 29022 (May 14, 2020); FinCEN, Agency Information
Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal
Without Change of the Bank Secrecy Act Reports by Financial
Institutions of Suspicious Transactions at 31 CFR 1020.320,
1021.320, 1022.320, 1023.320, 1024.320, 1025.320, 1026.320, and
1029.320, and FinCEN Report 111--Suspicious Activity Report, 85 FR
31598 (May 26, 2020); FinCEN, Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without
Change of Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Certain Financial
Institutions, 85 FR 49418 (Aug. 13, 2020); and FinCEN, Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment
Request; Renewal Without Change of the Customer Identification
Program Regulatory Requirements for Certain Financial Institutions,
85 FR 49425 (Aug. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Technology and Application of the BSA
New and innovative approaches in the financial sector in recent
years have resulted in the development of new business models,
products, and services, fueled in part by rapid advances in technology.
As innovation has presented new business and other opportunities,
illicit finance threats have also evolved and present new challenges
for financial institutions to comply with BSA obligations. FinCEN
recognizes the need to consider how to adapt the BSA's regulatory
requirements to better address illicit finance threats that have
changed considerably in scope, nature, and impact since the initial
passage of the BSA. FinCEN also recognizes that innovation and
technological advancements can enhance the ability of financial
institutions to comply with their BSA obligations, making it easier to
collect information that may be highly useful in combatting a variety
of financial crimes, and for U.S. Government authorities to better
analyze the information reported by financial institutions.
III. Requirements Under Section 6216 of the AML Act
A. Safeguards To Protect the Financial System From Threats
Section 6216 of the AML Act directs FinCEN to review BSA
regulations and guidance to ensure that Treasury provides, on a
continuing basis, for appropriate safeguards to protect the financial
system from threats to national security posed by various forms of
financial crime, including money laundering and the financing of
terrorism and proliferation.\19\ To meet this objective, FinCEN is
soliciting input regarding financial services and related activity that
present risk of exploitation by illicit actors or otherwise present a
risk to the U.S. financial system but might not be addressed, in whole
or in part, by existing regulations. At the same time, FinCEN seeks
comment on whether these risks can be addressed by new or amended
approaches toward AML program rule, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that protect national security and safeguard the U.S.
financial system while minimizing regulatory burden. In addition,
FinCEN seeks comment identifying BSA regulations or guidance where the
present safeguards do not effectively mitigate the risks they are
intended to prevent or mitigate. Specifically, FinCEN seeks to
understand whether AML program rule, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are sufficient to prevent or mitigate the serious risks
they are intended to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Section 6216(a)(1)(A) of the AML Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FinCEN views this objective as separate from the objective to
identify BSA regulations and guidance that do not promote a risk-based
approach, which is described in section C below. For this objective,
FinCEN is soliciting input from the public regarding: (i) Threats to
the financial system and to national security that are not adequately
[[Page 71204]]
addressed by BSA regulations and guidance; and (ii) regulatory
safeguards that FinCEN should implement via regulation or guidance to
better protect the financial system from such threats.
B. Reports and Records That Are Highly Useful in Countering Financial
Crime
Section 6216 also directs FinCEN to evaluate BSA regulations and
guidance to ensure that they continue to require certain reports or
records that are highly useful in countering financial crimes.\20\ The
purposes of the BSA include requiring reports or records that are
highly useful in criminal, tax, regulatory, or intelligence matters,
and preventing a variety of financial crime, including money laundering
and the financing of terrorism.\21\ FinCEN is authorized to require
financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses to maintain
procedures to ensure compliance with the BSA and the regulations
implementing it, and to guard against money laundering, the financing
of terrorism, and other forms of illicit finance.\22\ The BSA and
FinCEN's implementing regulations currently require financial
institutions, nonfinancial trades and businesses, and individuals to
file a variety of reports, including, for example, suspicious activity
reports (SARs), currency transaction reports (CTRs), reports of certain
domestic coin and currency transactions (Form 8300s), and reports of
foreign bank and financial accounts (FBARs). In addition, under 31
U.S.C. 5326(a), if the Secretary finds that reasonable grounds exist
for concluding that additional recordkeeping and reporting are
necessary to carry out the purposes of the BSA or to prevent evasions
thereof, the Secretary may issue an order requiring any domestic
financial institution or nonfinancial trade or business or group of
domestic financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses in
a geographic area to obtain, record, and report information concerning
certain transactions (as the Secretary may describe in such order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Section 6216(a)(1)(B) of the AML Act.
\21\ 31 U.S.C. 5311 (as amended by Section 6101(a) of the AML
Act).
\22\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(2) (as amended by Section 6102(c)(2) of
the AML Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second objective of Section 6216 essentially poses two
questions. First, are the reports or records that are currently
required to be filed or maintained highly useful in countering
financial crime? Second, are there any reports or records that are not
currently required to be filed or maintained that, if required, would
be highly useful in countering financial crime? This objective also
poses similar questions with respect to the BSA's numerous
recordkeeping requirements--namely, whether the current requirements
mandate any recordkeeping that is not highly useful in countering
financial crime, and whether different or additional recordkeeping
would be highly useful in countering financial crime.
C. Identify BSA Regulations and Guidance That May Be Outdated,
Redundant, or Do Not Promote a Risk-Based AML/CFT Regime for Financial
Institutions
Section 6216 also requires FinCEN to evaluate BSA regulations and
guidance that may be outdated, redundant, or otherwise do not promote a
risk-based AML and CFT compliance regime for financial
institutions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Section 6216(a)(1)(C)(i) of the AML Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FinCEN considers outdated regulations for the purposes of this RFI
to include regulations that: (i) No longer promote the maintenance of
risk-based safeguards that adequately address the regulation's original
purpose; or (ii) are no longer useful or appropriate. That is, if
reports filed consistent with a regulation no longer provides highly
useful information to the government, or if a regulation once
appropriately addressed a significant risk but no longer does so, that
regulation is outdated. Outdated regulations would also include
regulations that do not promote a risk-based approach to AML/CFT
compliance by failing to take into account innovation or technological
advancements in the financial system, or are obsolete in light of
subsequent statutory or regulatory changes.
FinCEN considers redundant regulations for the purpose of this RFI
to include BSA regulations that: (i) Impose requirements on regulated
entities that are identical to, or significantly overlap with, the
requirements imposed by other BSA regulations; or (ii) were issued
under a different statutory authority, but for which it is not possible
to comply with both mandates by taking one set of actions. Regulations
imposing such requirements will not be considered redundant to the
extent that fully satisfying one requirement under one framework fully
satisfies the other requirement as well.
Regulations Failing to Promote a Risk-Based Approach: FinCEN looked
at several sources to determine how BSA regulations and guidance might
fail to promote a risk-based AML/CFT regime for financial institutions,
for the purpose of this RFI, including the 2018 National Money
Laundering Risk Assessment (NMLRA),\24\ FinCEN's AML/CFT National
Priorities,\25\ and guidance from the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF),\26\ the international standard-setting body on combatting money
laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation. The NMLRA
in particular provides definitions of several key concepts that can
offer helpful clarification in connection with the Section 6216 review:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment,
(Dec. 20, 2018), at page 6, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf; see also Treasury, National
Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, (Dec. 20, 2018), available at
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018ntfra_12182018.pdf;
see also Treasury, National Proliferation Financing Risk Assessment,
(Dec. 20, 2018), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018npfra_12_18.pdf.
\25\ FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing
of Terrorism Priorities, (June 30, 2021), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/AML_CFT%20Priorities%20(June%2030%2C%202021).pdf.
\26\ The FATF is a member-led taskforce established in 1989 by
the Group of 7 (G7). Today it has 39 members, and more than 200
jurisdictions have committed to implementing the FATF standards and
are assessed against them by the FATF and/or one of nine FATF-style
regional bodies. Through its membership in the G7 and the Group of
20 (G20), the United States has also signed onto numerous G7 and G20
commitments to effectively implement the FATF standards. In 2013,
2019 and 2021, FATF issued guidelines and standards for the
assessment of systemic exposures to the risks of money laundering,
terrorist financing, and proliferation financing. According to these
guidelines, a systemic risk assessment is the result of a process,
based on a methodology agreed by those parties involved, that
attempts to identify, analyze, and understand the combination of
vulnerabilities, threats, and consequences affecting a regulated
subject, event, or activity. See FATF, Guidance on National Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, (Feb. 2013), at
page 6, Introduction and Terminology, Section 1.3-Key concepts and
terms relevant to a money laundering risk assessment, available at
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/content/images/national_ml_tf_risk_assessment.pdf; see also FATF, Guidance on
Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, (Mar. 2019), at pages 7-9 for
terminology relevant to a terrorist financing risk assessment,
available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Terrorist-Financing-Risk-Assessment-Guidance.pdf; see also FATF,
Guidance on Proliferation Risk Assessment and Mitigation, (June
2021), at pages 9-10 for key terminology, available at https://
www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Guidance-Proliferation-Financing-Risk-Assessment-Mitigation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threat: The NMLRA uses this term for predicate crimes associated
with money laundering.\27\ The NMLRA deems the environment in which
predicate offenses are committed and criminal proceeds generated as
being relevant to understanding why, in some cases, specific crimes are
associated with specific money laundering methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ These predicate crimes are enumerated at 18 U.S.C.
1956(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71205]]
Vulnerability: The NMLRA uses this term for circumstances or
situations that facilitate or create the opportunity for money
laundering. A vulnerability may relate to a specific financial sector
or product, or a weakness in regulation, supervision, or enforcement. A
vulnerability may also reflect unique circumstances pursuant to which
it may be difficult to distinguish legal from illegal activity. The
methods that allow for the most amount of money to be laundered most
effectively or most quickly present the greatest potential
vulnerabilities.
Risk: The NMLRA conceives of risk as a function of threat and
vulnerability. Risk represents a synthesis, taking into consideration
the effect of mitigating measures including regulation, supervision,
and enforcement.
The NMLRA also informed Treasury's 2020 National Strategy for
Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing in considering
approaches to risk. According to that strategy, a risk-based approach
in the context of AML/CFT means allocating resources and implementing
measures to prevent or mitigate illicit finance in a way that takes
into account identified and well understood risks.\28\ Further, in 2019
FinCEN and the FBAs issued a Joint Statement on Risk-Focused BSA/AML
Supervision noting that risk-based compliance programs enable the
allocation of compliance resources commensurate with risk.\29\ The goal
of the risk-based approach is to establish and maintain AML/CFT
programs proportionate to the risk present in financial institutions
based on customers and activities. It focuses available resources in
the areas of highest risk in order to have the greatest impact, while
reducing the resources devoted to activities carrying lower risk. For
purposes of this RFI, when attempting to identify regulations and
guidance that do not promote a risk-based AML/CFT regime for financial
institutions, commenters are encouraged to identify regulations and
guidance that discourage or hinder financial institutions from using or
allocating resources commensurate with risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Treasury, 2020 National Strategy for Combating
Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing, at pages 6-7, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf; see also FATF, FATF Recommendations:
International Standards on Combatting Money Laundering and the
Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, (updated Oct. 2021), page
31, Interpretive Note for FATF Recommendation 1 (describing the
risk-based approach), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATFRecommendations2012.pdf.
\29\ See FinCEN, Joint Statement on Risk Focused Bank Secrecy
Act Anti Money Laundering Supervision, (July 22, 2019), available at
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/JointStatementonRisk-FocusedBankSecrecyAct-Anti-MoneyLaunderingSupervisionFINAL1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Identify BSA Regulations and Guidance That Do Not Conform With
International Standards To Combat Financial Crime
Section 6216 requires FinCEN to identify regulations and guidance
that do not conform to commitments of the United States to meet
international standards to combat money laundering, financing of
terrorism, serious tax fraud, or other financial crimes.\30\ Preeminent
among such standards are the FATF Recommendations that promote
effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures
for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related
threats to the integrity of the international financial system.\31\
FATF monitors countries' progress in implementing the FATF standards
through mutual evaluations; reviews money laundering and terrorist
financing techniques and counter-measures; and promotes the adoption
and implementation of the FATF standards globally.\32\ Given their
international recognition as standards for AML, CFT, and countering the
financing of proliferation, the FATF Recommendations will factor into
how Treasury approaches meeting this objective under Section 6216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Section 6216(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the AML Act.
\31\ See FATF, FATF Recommendations,--International Standards on
Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism &
Proliferation (``FATF Recommendations''), (updated Oct. 2021), at
page 7, available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATFRecommendations2012.pdf
\32\ See FATF, FATF Recommendations, at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FATF published its most recent mutual evaluation of the United
States in December 2016 \33\ and, in March 2020, issued a follow-up
report.\34\ The purpose of this third follow-up report was to assess
the United States' progress in addressing certain technical compliance
deficiencies identified in the 2016 Mutual Evaluation Report, most
notably relating to customer due diligence obligations, and to analyze
the United States' progress in implementing new requirements relating
to FATF Recommendations that have changed since the end of the 2016
Mutual Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See FATF, Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist
financing measures--United States, Fourth Round Mutual Evaluation
Report, (2016), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/mutualevaluations/documents/mer-united-states-2016.html.
\34\ See FATF, Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist
financing measures--United States, 3rd Enhanced Follow-up Report &
Technical Compliance Re-Rating, (2020), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/fur/Follow-Up-Report-United-States-March-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Make Changes to BSA Regulations and Guidance To Improve Efficiency
Finally, Section 6216 requires FinCEN to make changes, as
appropriate, to regulations and guidance to improve the efficiency of
those provisions.\35\ FinCEN is asking the public to identify specific
changes to BSA regulations and guidance that would make them more
efficient. Efficiency in this context can refer to financial
institutions focusing resources on providing information that is more
useful to law enforcement, reporting highly useful information in a
timely manner, or reducing redundancies and information of little use
to law enforcement. As part of this process, FinCEN requests comment on
regulations and guidance that do not support timely and cost-effective
compliance with BSA obligations that produces highly useful information
for law enforcement or U.S. Government entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Section 6216(a)(2) of the AML Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Questions for Comment
A. Safeguards To Protect the Financial System From Threats
1. The objective of Section 6216(a)(1)(A) of the AML Act is to
ensure that Treasury provides, on a continuing basis, for appropriate
safeguards to protect the financial system from threats to national
security posed by various forms of financial crime. Are there any
threats, vulnerabilities, or risks that you think Treasury is unaware
of, or that you think Treasury is not responding to with sufficient and
appropriate safeguards? If so, please identify the threats, along with
any suggestions you have for how Treasury might better identify and
respond to them, including any safeguards that Treasury should
implement.
2. Do AML program requirements for financial institutions
sufficiently address the threats, vulnerabilities, and risks faced by
the U.S. financial system? If not, what changes do you recommend to
ensure that AML program requirements adequately and effectively
safeguard U.S. national security?
B. Reports and Records That Are Highly Useful in Countering Financial
Crime
3. Are there BSA reporting or recordkeeping requirements that you
believe do not provide information that is highly useful in countering
financial crimes? If so, what reports or records, and why? Conversely,
are there reports
[[Page 71206]]
or records not currently required that would be highly useful? If so,
what reports and records, and why?
4. Are there specific changes to BSA reporting or recordkeeping
requirements that would provide information that is more useful to law
enforcement in countering financial crimes or allow financial
institutions to better understand what information to report? If so,
which reports or records, and what changes do you recommend?
5. How can FinCEN ensure that BSA reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are highly useful in countering financial crimes on a
continuing basis? For example, should FinCEN conduct certain studies or
analyze certain data on a regular basis to ensure BSA reports and
records continue to be highly useful in countering financial crimes?
6. Should FinCEN consider certain regular or automatic updates to
specific BSA regulations to ensure the reports or records they require
continue to be highly useful in countering financial crimes? For
example, should FinCEN more regularly update certain BSA reports'
fields based on frequency of use, terms included, or other relevant
factors and trends identified? What other events might necessitate such
updates?
7. Would automatically updating certain BSA reporting or
recordkeeping requirements streamline or reduce the potential
compliance burden without sacrificing the usefulness of the required
BSA reports and records in countering financial crimes? If so, what
other requirements might benefit from automatic updates? For example,
should automatic updates to dollar thresholds for certain BSA reports
and records occur to account for inflation adjustments? What other
circumstances might necessitate automatic updates?
8. Should FinCEN consider periodic adjustments, such as customized
thresholds, to BSA regulations and guidance to account for changes in
risk, such as changes in geographic risk? What circumstances might
necessitate customized thresholds and why?
C. Identify BSA Regulations and Guidance That May Be Outdated,
Redundant, or Do Not Promote a Risk-Based AML/CFT Regime for Financial
Institutions
i. Outdated Regulations
9. Are there BSA regulations or guidance that do not promote risk-
based safeguards or that no longer fulfill their original purpose? If
so, which regulations or guidance, and what changes do you recommend?
10. Are there BSA regulations or guidance that are obsolete or no
longer provide useful information to the government? Alternatively, are
there any BSA regulations or guidance that target risks that no longer
exists? If so, which regulations or guidance, and what changes do you
recommend?
11. Are there any BSA regulations or guidance that are obsolete
because of changes in compliance business practices and/or
technological innovation in the financial system or elsewhere? If so,
how should FinCEN address this?
12. Do FinCEN's regulations and guidance sufficiently allow
financial institutions to incorporate innovative and technological
approaches to BSA compliance? If not, how can FinCEN facilitate greater
use of these tools, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in
place and highly useful information continues to be reported to
government authorities?
ii. Redundant Regulations
13. Are there BSA regulations that impose requirements identical to
or significantly overlapping with requirements imposed by other BSA
regulations? If so, which BSA regulations, and what amendments do you
recommend?
14. Are there BSA regulations that impose requirements that are
identical to or significantly overlap with requirements imposed under
another regulatory regime? If so, which BSA regulations, and which
other regulatory framework?
15. Are there other provisions under the AML Act, or the BSA as
amended by the AML Act, that you think will assist in eliminating
redundant BSA regulations and guidance? If so, which sections of the
AML Act or amended BSA, and why?
iii. Other Regulations That Do Not Promote a Risk-Based Regime
16. Do any BSA regulations or guidance require or encourage
resources be allocated inefficiently based on the level of risk that
the regulations or guidance are intended to prevent or mitigate? If so,
which regulations or guidance, and what changes would you recommend
FinCEN make?
17. Aside from any issues mentioned in response to the questions
above, are there other BSA regulations or guidance that do not promote
a risk-based approach? If so, which regulations or guidance, how do
they fail to promote a risk-based regime, and what changes would you
recommend FinCEN make? Please distinguish as clearly as possible
between issues that result from the content of a regulation or
guidance, and issues that result from compliance supervision,
examinations, or audits.
18. How else can FinCEN reaffirm that BSA regulations and guidance
are intended to foster a risk-based approach?
19. Are there BSA regulations or guidance for which applying a
risk-based approach is challenging? If so, which regulations or
guidance, what are the challenges, and how might FinCEN reduce or
eliminate those challenges?
20. Are there BSA regulations or guidance that are highly effective
at promoting a risk-based approach such that they should be used as a
model for other BSA regulations and guidance? If so, which regulations
or guidance, and why?
D. Identify BSA Regulations and Guidance That Do Not Conform With
International Standards To Combat Financial Crime
21. Do any BSA regulations or guidance fail to conform with U.S.
commitments to meet international standards, or do not fully implement
international standards, including the FATF Recommendations? If so,
which regulations or guidance, and why?
22. Which deficiencies identified in the FATF's 2016 U.S. Mutual
Evaluation Report and addressed in the third Follow-Up Report most
significantly prevent the United States from fully implementing an
effective and risk-based approach? What changes to regulations or
guidance would you recommend to address the deficiencies identified?
E. Identify Changes to BSA Regulations and Guidance To Improve
Efficiency
23. Are there BSA regulations or guidance that should be amended to
improve their efficiency? If so, which regulations or guidance, and
what amendments do you recommend?
24. Are there BSA regulations or guidance that are unclear or are
overly burdensome in comparison to the risk posed? If so, which
regulations or guidance? To what do you attribute the additional
burden, and in what way (if any) is the burden excessive compared to
the benefits of the regulation? Could the burden be reduced without
making the regulations or guidance less effective? If so, how?
25. Aside from any regulations or guidance identified in response
to previous questions, are there any BSA regulations or guidance with
which you believe compliance provides minimal or no benefit to the
government, thus making any compliance burden excessive? If so, which
regulations or
[[Page 71207]]
guidance, and would you propose to amend or repeal them? If amend, how?
And if repeal, why repeal rather than amend?
26. In what ways could BSA regulations or guidance be more
efficient in light of innovative approaches and new technologies. For
should any BSA regulations or guidance account for technological
advancements, such as digital identification, machine learning, and
artificial intelligence? If so, how?
V. Conclusion
Conducting the formal review required under Section 6216 of the AML
Act will assist FinCEN in modernizing and streamlining BSA regulations
and guidance to ensure that they continue to: (i) Support the purposes
and goals of the BSA and the AML Act, and (ii) safeguard the U.S.
financial system. The formal review will also allow FinCEN to identify
and, as appropriate, revise regulations and guidance that do not
promote a risk-based AML/CFT regime for financial institutions, are not
in conformity with international standards, or are outdated, redundant,
or inefficient. In addition, the formal review will assist FinCEN in
identifying recommendations for administrative and legislative changes
to BSA regulations and guidance. FinCEN seeks input from the public on
the questions set forth above, including from regulated parties; state,
local, and Tribal governments; law enforcement; regulators; other
consumers of BSA data; and any other interested parties. We encourage
all interested parties to provide their views.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2021-27081 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
