On December 27, 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced a notice of assessment of a civil money penalty against a Kansas-based bank. The action, originally brought in November, imposed a $20.4 million civil money penalty against the bank and alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq., for its failure to implement an adequate anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism program.
The FDIC asserts that between December 2018 and August 2020, the Bank’s AML/CFT compliance program failed to address risks associated with its high-volume international banking operations. These operations included processing $27 billion in wire transfers for foreign banks in 2018 alone and facilitating bulk cash shipments from Mexico. Specific deficiencies cited by the FDIC include:
- Inadequate Internal Controls. The bank’s reliance on flawed AML monitoring software and manual reviews failed to detect red flags, such as large, suspicious transactions and activity linked to high-risk jurisdictions. Although the banks employed external auditors to analyze its BSA compliance, the complaint claims the testing was too limited and lacked sufficient data.
- Customer Due Diligence Failures. The bank failed to establish and maintain an effective customer due diligence program, as the BSA Officer’s ongoing due diligence for the bulk cash business was limited to comparing actual to expected cash deposits without conducting denomination analysis or monitoring outgoing wire activity, resulting in missed data indicative of money laundering and terrorist financing risk.
- Deficient Reporting. The bank failed to file hundreds of suspicious activity reports (SARs) required by federal law, and did not implement sufficient customer due diligence or foreign correspondent account monitoring. The FDIC also found that the bank’s BSA Officer was not properly empowered to make SAR filings, SAR filing decisions were instead made collectively by a committee consisting of various C-suite executives of the bank.
- Unqualified Oversight. The appointed BSA officer during the relevant period lacked necessary experience and authority to manage the bank’s AML compliance program effectively, pointing to deficiencies in the bank’s BSA/AML training program.
The FDIC described the alleged violations as part of a “pattern of misconduct” and noted that the bank benefited financially from these failures, generating significant fee income.
Putting It Into Practice: The FDIC’s action was swiftly challenged by the bank. On November 19, it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas challenging the FDIC’s findings, emphasizing that the bank ceased the operations in question in 2020 and took swift corrective actions. In its complaint, the bank also argues that the fine penalizes “years-old conduct” and disregards the bank’s current compliance improvements.