New Law Requires Disclosure of Beneficial Owners of Companies There’s historically been no requirement to provide information to the federal government concerning the ownership of a company or other similar entity formed under local state law.
Many lawyers, accountants, trust officers and financial advisors in the United States may be unaware that buried deep in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (the Defense Bill), which became law on Jan. 1, 2021, was a new law that could have a profound impact on the private client community in the coming years. The Defense Bill includes the Corporate Transparency Act (the Act), which requires corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs) and “other similar entities” formed within any U.S. state (or territory) to disclose certain information regarding their beneficial owners (that is, someone with ownership rights to property although the title is in another name) to the U.S. Treasury. There’s historical
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On January 1, 2021, the U.S. Senate overrode President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 (NDAA), a bill that (perhaps surprisingly) included rules affecting the art market. Specifically, the new law subjects antiquities dealers to the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, requires registration of the ultimate beneficial ownership of limited liability companies, and directs the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at the Department of the Treasury to conduct a study of money laundering in the art market. Long considered but only now passed, the bill is a significant step into regulating the U.S. art and antiquities market, though still far less invasive than the European Union’s current approach. The new regulations raise questions about the cost benefit balance of compliance, but leave no doubt after last year’s Senate report that regulators have the art market in their sights and
Securities Enforcement and Regulatory Update
Congress Rings in the New Year With Substantial Changes to Anti-Money Laundering Laws
January 5, 2021
Share
The new year rings in the most significant changes in U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) law since the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act and its implementing regulations in 2001.
1 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2021, highlighted in the press for Congress’ override of a veto by the President of the United States, included the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act). The AML Act will have a substantial impact on financial institutions with AML program requirements as well as certain legal entities such as limited liability companies established within the United States.
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
In recent years, the federal government’s financial fraud enforcement priorities have been largely consistent and robust. But in 2020, the pandemic appeared to cause government authorities to focus more resources to combat financial fraud as it related to COVID-19. In 2021, we may see an uptick in enforcement actions because of new priorities set by a Biden administration and because of fraudulent activities associated with the pandemic. As discussed below, there are multiple areas of financial fraud enforcement to watch.
Insider Trading
Over the last decade, insider trading has been a key enforcement priority for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and will likely continue to be one for quite some time. While the DOJ and SEC have been leading the charge in this enforcement area, with the advent of authorities granted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010,
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On 18 December, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced highly anticipated and controversial new proposed requirements designed to mitigate illicit finance risks associated with “unhosted” virtual currency wallets and wallets hosted in certain foreign jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering regimes. Unlike customers who rely on the custody services of financial institutions subject to anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements to send and receive virtual currency, users of unhosted or “self-hosted” wallets can transact directly with one another and with hosted wallets using their own private keys, creating potential illicit finance risks. FinCEN’s proposed rule would, if enacted, create new obligations for banks and money services businesses (MSBs) including virtual asset service providers (VASPs) engaging