Low, Lucinda A.; Tillen, James G.; Abendschein, Karl; Fisher-Owens, Daniel M. --- "Country Report: The US anti-money laundering system" [2004] ELECD 136; in Pieth, Mark; Aiolfi, Gemma (eds), "A Comparative Guide to Anti-Money Laundering" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004)

Book Title: A Comparative Guide to Anti-Money Laundering

Editor(s): Pieth, Mark; Aiolfi, Gemma

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781843766735

Section: Chapter 7

Section Title: Country Report: The US anti-money laundering system

Author(s): Low, Lucinda A.; Tillen, James G.; Abendschein, Karl; Fisher-Owens, Daniel M.

Number of pages: 67

Extract:

7. Country Report: The US anti-money
laundering system
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.
107­56 (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. ...