Tag Archives: SEC

Investment Advisers: Be Prepared for New AML and CIP Requirements.

In coordinated actions, the SEC and FinCEN have proposed changes to the definition of “financial institutions” covered by the BSA to include RIA and ERAs, and to add customer identification program (CIP) requirements for advisory firms. Pointing to the more than $115 trillion RIA space as an entry point for terrorists and other bad actors, the SEC/FinCEN have stated that they are trying to close out this loophole in the compliance regime.

If enacted, RIAs would be subject to the BSA’s AML regime, just like other financial institutions, and would be required to maintain CIPs that, at a minimum, implement reasonable procedures to require customer identity verification. Notably, RIAs can rely on their clearing firm’s CIP program provided that the clearing firm certifies on an annual basis that it has implemented its AML/CIP programs, and meets other requirements. Alternatively, RIAs would have to directly implement their own CIP program.

Timing: The public comment periods for the proposed rules have passed. It is now in the government’s hands to respond and refine the proposals. If the agencies adopt the rules, they would go into effect 60 days after publication in the federal register, with a compliance date 6 months later.

Here is a link to the joint SEC/FinCEN press release.

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-54

Supreme Court Holds 5-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to SEC Disgorgement

On June 5, 2017, by unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that disgorgement – a remedy that generated $3 billion in 2015 – is a “penalty” thereby subjecting it to the 5-year statute of limitations that applies to any “action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise.” Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529, slip op. at 1 (June 5, 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §2462). The Court’s decision relieved Kokesh of a $30 million disgorgement order entered in the lower court.

The SEC had argued that disgorgement is a different animal – it simply places the defendant in the same position as he or she would have been but for the offense. The Court strongly disagreed noting the deterrent qualities of disgorgement, which is a hallmark of a penalty, “[s]anctions imposed for the purpose of deterring infractions of public laws are inherently punitive.” Id. at 8. The Court observed that the victims (if there are any) of a securities law violation need not participate in the enforcement action and may not even support it. In addition, money that is disgorged to the Treasury often stays there; i.e., there is no absolute requirement that the money that is recovered be distributed to the purportedly aggrieved investors.

Going forward, the SEC is faced with having to speed up its investigations and charging decisions.  That can be a challenge, especially in complex cases where the Enforcement Division would prefer to thoroughly build out a case in advance.

Here is the decision:

Click to access 16-529_i426.pdf