Money Laundering 2008 - (Page 24) Monday, March 17, 2008 7:30 AM–5:30 PM Registration Desk Open Conference Bags Courtesy of GlobalVision Systems Lanyards Courtesy of Fircosoft Name Badges Courtesy of Complinet Hotel Room Keys Courtesy of World-Check 7:30 AM–8:30 AM Continental Breakfast Courtesy of Safe Banking Systems Opening Remarks Section 1956(b)–The U.S. Justice Department’s Rediscovered Weapon That Blends Regulatory Mandates With a Prosecutor’s Wallop The United States money laundering law gives the U.S. Justice Department a unique choice in dealing with financial institutions and others that help launder crime proceeds. It may prosecute them for money laundering, subjecting them to fines, loss of license and prison terms. Or, by a rare alternate route, it may sue them for all the money they allegedly helped their customer to launder. Last used against a bank in 1998, this “civil penalty” provision is now aimed at two institutions in New York U.S. federal court, Lloyds TSB Bank and Bank of Cyprus, for the record sums of $130,000,000 and $162,000,000. Prosecutors say the banks knowingly helped their customers launder the proceeds of a securities fraud that swindled thousands of investors in a publiclytraded company. The cases set important precedents for prosecutors, regulators, banks, securities dealers and insurance companies and underscore the consequences of doing business with persons who move dirty money through their accounts. In this session, money laundering warriors explain how this weapon works, how it reaches around the globe and how it can apply to you and your institution. Panelists: Lewis Freeman, Gordon Greenberg, Laura Stuber, Richard Weber Moderator: Charles Intriago and Teresa Pesce 8:30 AM–9:00 AM 9:00 AM–10:15 AM 10:15 AM–10:45 AM Refreshment Break in Exhibition Hall Courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Financial Services I PCi 10:45 AM–12:00 PM Interpreting AML Enforcement Actions–Do They Hold Messages for All, as Examiners and Consultants Say, Or Are They Narrow Negotiated Settlements? In the last two years more than $180 million in money penalties were imposed on a handful of banks and other institutions in the U.S. for AML and Bank Secrecy Act violations. Several more are coming. How important are these actions? Are they just byproducts of regulatory negotiations? Some field examiners and consultants say the orders carry doom and gloom lessons for all. While these cases hog headlines, dozens more non-public regulatory actions receive no publicity. The agencies even decline to reveal how many there are, including “Matters Requiring Attention,” “Supervisory Letters,” and “Memoranda of Understanding.” There, resolution is amicable and no penalties flow. What is the reality? What lessons do public actions really contain? Do they provide insight into how regulators think and what their priorities are? Do they serve for employee training on what went wrong at an institution? Here, experts answer these questions and decipher enforcement actions for your maximum utility. They tell you how you should use them even if you work at a non-bank financial institution. Panelists: Herbert Biern, Hal Crawford, Mia Levine, Rick Small Moderator: John Byrne 24 Conference Program
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.