Workshop A:
2:30 PM – 4:00 PM         
Dissecting the Recent Major U.S. Justice Department ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreement’ and ‘Civil Money Laundering’ Cases for Their Vital Lessons in Good Compliance

Many of the recent serious actions against banks have been filed not by the regulatory agencies but by the U.S. Department of Justice from Washington or from various U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the nation. American Express Bank International, BankAtlantic in Florida, Union Bank of California, Lloyds TSB Bank, and Bank of Cyprus have suffered forfeitures or face serious lawsuits in which the consequences can be severe. Some of these legal actions have been filed on novel grounds that have few precedents. In some cases the amounts the Justice Department seeks are astronomical and run into nine figures.

In cases filed in New York City by the U.S. Attorney’s Office against the Bank of Cyprus, the government is seeking a judgment against the bank for $162,000,000. In the case filed against Lloyds TSB Bank, the U.S. Attorney’s office is seeking $130,000,000. 

In three “Deferred Prosecution Agreements” filed by the Justice Department, American Express Bank International, in Miami, paid $65,000,000, Union Bank of California paid $32,000,000 and BankAtlantic, in Florida, paid $10,000,000. 

How do these actions commence? How should an institution control the damage from these cases? What is on the horizon? How to gauge the impact on reputation?  Is there a way to mitigate the harm that these actions cause to an institution? What is the role of the regulatory agencies when the Department of Justice and an agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Federal Bureau of Investigation are the driving forces in the cases?  Is there any way to convince the Department of Justice that the actions against the financial institution should not be brought? 

These are some of the questions that institutions must ask now that the Department of Justice, after several years of relatively little activity in the AML field, emerges as a major player. In this crucial pre-conference workshop, you will hear from experts who understand these cases. They will guide you on how to deal with them and on the many aspects you must confront and deal with now.

Workshop C
4:30 PM – 6:00 PM
How You Can Deal Effectively With ‘Cover Payments’ to Avoid AML and OFAC Sanctions Risks

Recent enforcement actions highlight regulatory concerns about the use of cover payments by international financial institutions. Cover payments are funds transfers that involve two distinct payment message streams, which often do not identify the originator and beneficiary of the transfer in the payment order sent to correspondent banks involved in the payment. This practice exposes banks to the risk of unwittingly facilitating the international movement of money destined for illegal purposes or for the benefit of a person listed on a sanctions list of the European Union, OFAC or another body. The payments not only mask the involvement of sanctioned parties, but also prevent institutions from adequately monitoring for and reporting suspicious activity.

This pre-conference workshop explores through the instruction of top experts how institutions should manage the risks in cover payments and what information–gathering procedures they should use to minimize those risks.