A Comparative Guide to Anti-Money Laundering

A Comparative Guide to Anti-Money Laundering

A Critical Analysis of Systems in Singapore, Switzerland, the UK and the USA

Edited by Mark Pieth and Gemma Aiolfi

Topical and pertinent issues addressed in this book include questions such as, has all the recent legislative activity really put a stop to the problem? Are the international rules being implemented as carefully as they should? How level is the playing field in cross border banking?

Chapter 7: Country Report: The US anti-money laundering system

Lucinda A. Low, James G. Tillen, Karl Abendschein and Daniel M. Fisher-Owens

Subjects: law - academic, corruption and economic crime, politics and public policy, terrorism and security


Prepared for the Basel Institute on Governance by Lucinda A. Low, James G. Tillen and Karl Abendschein, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC and Daniel M. Fisher-Owens, formerly of Miller & Chevalier Chartered1,2 I OVERVIEW OF THE US ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING SYSTEM A Development and Philosophy of the US Supervisory System for Financial Institutions and Anti-Money Laundering The US anti-money laundering regime is based primarily on two statutory schemes: (1) the Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA), a penal statute (codified at 18 USC. §§1956 and 1957); and (2) the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a regulatory statute (codified at 31 USC. §5311 et seq.). Both laws have been amended most recently in October 2001 by the International Money Laundering Control and Abatement Act of 2001, adopted as Title III of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (US PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub L. No. 107–56 (2001) (hereinafter the ‘PATRIOT Act’). Initially, the BSA, while defining the universe of ‘financial institutions’ broadly (see s. 3.21 infra), was implemented with respect to a more limited scope of depository and other financial institutions and required only that covered institutions keep accurate records of financial transactions and report certain domestic and foreign transactions involving currency exceeding certain threshold amounts. Even these modest requirements were challenged by banks on privacy grounds, but were twice upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s (see Cal. Bankers Ass’n vs Shultz, 416 US 21 (1974); USA vs Miller, 425 US 435...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information