Tag: Department of the Treasury

Corporate Transparency Act Requires Disclosure of Information Regarding Beneficial Owners to FinCEN

The new year brings the most expansive disclosure requirements for U.S. business entities since the Depression. Starting January 1, 2024, U.S. companies and foreign companies operating in the United States will be required to report their beneficial owners and principal officers to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) adopted as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, unless subject to specific exemptions.

Who Is Required to Report?
The CTA’s filing requirements (31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)) apply to both domestic reporting companies and foreign reporting companies.

  • Domestic reporting companies are corporations, limited liability companies and any other entity registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with the secretary of state or similar official.
  • Foreign reporting companies are business entities formed under the law of a foreign country that are registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with the secretary of state or similar official

The CTA provides 23 categories of exemption. The following types of entities are not required to file reports with FinCEN:

  • Large Operating Companies
    This exemption applies to entities that (1) have 20 people or more full time employees in the United States, (2) have gross revenue (or sales) in excess of $5 million on their prior year’s tax return and (3) have a physical office in the United States.
  • Securities Reporting Issuers
  • Governmental Authorities
  • Banks
  • Credit Unions
  • Depository Institution Holding Companies
  • Money Services Businesses
  • Brokers and Dealers in Securities
  • Securities Exchanges and Clearing Agencies
  • Other Exchange Act Registered Entities
  • Investment Companies and Investment Advisers
  • Venture Capital Fund Advisers
  • Insurance Companies
  • State-Licensed Insurance Producers
  • Commodity Exchange Act Registered Entities
  • Accounting Firms
  • Public Utilities
  • Financial Market Utilities
  • Pooled Investment Vehicles
  • Tax-Exempt Entities
  • Entities Assisting a Tax-Exempt Entity
  • Subsidiaries of Certain Exempt Entities
  • Inactive Entities

It is worth noting that the definition of reporting companies is not limited to corporations and limited liability companies. Limited partnerships, professional service entities and other entities may qualify as reporting companies and, if so, are required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

How Does a Company Comply?
FinCEN requires affected companies to file beneficial ownership information reports (BOI Reports) using an electronic filing system. See the BOI E-Filing System.

What Information Should Be Reported?
Reporting companies must identify beneficial owners in their BOI Reports.

Beneficial owners are defined as individuals who directly or indirectly (1) exercise substantial control over a reporting company or (2) own or control at least 25 percent of ownership interests of a reporting company. Ownership interests covered by the CTA may include profits interests, convertible instruments, options and contractual arrangements as well as equity securities. In addition, owners who hold their ownership interests jointly or through a trust, agent or other intermediary are also required to be identified – although minors are generally exempted from reporting obligations.

Senior officers (typically, the president, CEO, CFO, COO and officers who perform similar functions); individuals with the ability to appoint senior officers or a majority of the board of directors or a similar body; and anyone else who directs, determines or has substantial input to other important decisions of a reporting company also need to be identified in BOI Reports as individuals exercising substantial control over reporting companies.

Reporting companies created on or after January 1, 2024, also must identify “company applicants” in their BOI Reports. Company applicants are the individuals who filed the documents creating the reporting company and individuals primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of documents creating a reporting company.

BOI Reports must contain the following information regarding the reporting company:

  • Legal name
  • Any trade name or d/b/a name
  • Address of the company’s principal place of business in the United States
  • Jurisdiction of formation
  • Taxpayer Identification Number.

BOI Reports must contain the following information regarding each beneficial owner and company applicant:

  • Full legal name
  • Date of birth
  • Current address
  • Copy of a passport, driver’s license or other identification document.

Every person who files a BOI Report must certify the information contained is true, correct and complete.

Information contained in BOI Reports will not be available to the public. However, FinCEN is authorized to disclose such information to:

  • U.S. federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence or law enforcement activity
  • With court approval, to certain other state or local law enforcement agencies
  • Non-U.S. law enforcement agencies at the request of a U.S. federal law enforcement agency, prosecutor or judge
  • With the consent of the reporting company, financial institutions and their regulators
  • Federal regulators in assessing financial institutions compliance with customer due diligence requirements
  • The U.S. Department of the Treasury for purposes including tax administration.

Is There a Fee?
No fee is required in connection with filing of BOI Reports.

When Do Companies Need to File?
U.S. and foreign reporting companies that were formed or registered to do business in the United States prior to January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI Reports no later than January 1, 2025. U.S. and foreign reporting companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI Reports within 90 days of receipt of notice of formation.

Reporting companies are required to file updated reports with FinCEN within 30 days of occurrence of a change in any of the information contained in their BOI Reports.

What If There Are Changes or Inaccuracies in the Reported Information?
Inaccuracies in BOI Reports must be corrected within 30 days of the date a reporting company becomes aware of or had reason to know of such inaccuracy. FinCEN has indicated that there will be no penalties for filing inaccurate BOI Reports if such reports are corrected within 90 days of their filing.

What If a Company Fails to File?
The willful failure to report the information required by the CTA or filing fraudulent information under the CTA may result in civil or criminal penalties, including penalties of up to $500 per day as long as a violation continues, imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $10,000. Senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required report may be held accountable for such failure.

If you have questions regarding the provisions of the CTA or its applicability to your company, you may go to the FinCEN website.

© 2024 Wilson Elser
For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Wealth Management Update January 2024

JANUARY 2024 INTEREST RATES FOR GRATS, SALES TO DEFECTIVE GRANTOR TRUSTS, INTRA-FAMILY LOANS AND SPLIT INTEREST CHARITABLE TRUSTS

The January applicable federal rate (“AFR”) for use with a sale to a defective grantor trust, self-canceling installment note (“SCIN”) or intra-family loan with a note having a duration of 3-9 years (the mid-term rate, compounded annually) is 4.37%, down from 4.82% in December 2023.

The January 2024 Section 7520 rate for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs and GRATs is 5.20%, down from the 5.80% Section 7520 rate in December 2023.

The AFRs (based on annual compounding) used in connection with intra-family loans are 5.00% for loans with a term of 3 years or less, 4.37% for loans with a term between 3 and 9 years, and 4.54% for loans with a term of longer than 9 years.

REG-142338-07 – PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELATED TO DONOR ADVISED FUNDS

On November 13, 2023, the Department of the Treasury and IRS released Proposed Regulation REG-142338-07 under Section 4966; providing guidance related to numerous open-issues with respect to certain tax rules relating to donor advised funds “(DAFs”).

Pursuant to §4966(d)(2)(A), a DAF is defined generally as a fund or account (1) that is separately identified by reference to contributions of a donor or donors, (2) owned and controlled by a sponsoring organization, and (3) with respect to which a donor (or person appointed or designated by such donor) has, or reasonably expects to have, advisory privileges with respect to the distribution or investment of amounts held in the fund or account by reason of the donor’s status as a donor.

Under the proposed regulations, the definition of a DAF is consistent with the definition under the statute (the same three elements), however, the proposed regulations provide key definitions with respect to specific terms under the Statute.

Element #1: a fund that is separately identified by reference to contributions of a donor or donors.

Separately Identified: The proposed regulations provide that a fund or account is separately identified if the sponsoring organization maintains a formal record of contributions to the fund relating to a donor or donors (regardless of whether the sponsoring organization commingles the assets attributed to the fund with other assets of the sponsoring organization).

If the sponsoring organization does not maintain a formal record, then whether a fund or account is separately identified would be based on all the facts and circumstances, including but not limited to whether: (1) the fund or account balance reflects items such as contributions, expenses and performance; (2) the fund or account is named after the donors; (3) the sponsoring organization refers to the account as a DAF; (4) the sponsoring organization has an agreement or understanding with the donors that such account is a DAF; and (5) the donors regularly receive a statement from the sponsoring organization.

Donor: The proposed regulations broadly define a Donor as any person described in 7701(a)(1) that contributes to a fund or account of a sponsoring organization. However, the proposed regulations specifically exclude public charities defined in 509(a) and any governmental unit described in 170(c)(1). Note: Private foundations and disqualified supporting organizations are not excluded from the definition of a donor since they could use a DAF to circumvent the payout and other applicable requirements.

Element #2: a fund that is owned or controlled by a sponsoring organization. The definition of a sponsoring organization is consistent with §4966(d)(1), specifically, an organization described in §170(c), other than a private foundation, that maintains one or more DAFs.

Element #3: a fund under which at least one donor or donor-advisor has advisory privileges.

Advisory Privileges: In general, the existence of advisory privileges is based on all facts and circumstances, but it is presumed that the donor always has such privileges (even if no advice is given).

The proposed regulations provide that advisory privileges exist when: (i) the sponsoring organization allows a donor or donor-advisor to provide nonbinding recommendations regarding distributions or investments of a fund; (ii) a written agreement states that a donor or donor-advisor has advisory privileges; (iii) a written document or marketing material provided to the donor or donor-advisor indicates that such donor or donor-advisor may provide advice to the sponsoring organization; or (iv) the sponsoring organization generally solicits advice from a donor or donor-advisor regarding distributions or investment of a DAF’s assets.

Donor-Advisor: Defined by the proposed regulations as a person appointed or designated by a donor to have advisory privileges regarding the distribution or investment of assets held in a DAF. If a donor-advisor delegates any of the donor-advisor’s advisor privileges to another person, such person would also be a donor-advisor.

Potential Issue related to Investment Advisors: Is a donor’s personal investment advisor deemed a “donor-advisor?” Pursuant to the proposed regulations:

  • An investment advisor will not be deemed a donor-advisor if he or she:
    • Serves the supporting organization as a whole; or
    • Is recommended by the donor to serve on a committee (of more than 3) of the sponsoring organization that advises as to distributions
  • However, an investment advisor will be deemed a donor-advisor if he or she manages the investments of, or provides investment advice with respect to, both assets maintained in a DAF and the personal assets of a donor to that DAF while serving in such dual capacity. This provision, if finalized may have important consequences for fee structures used by supporting organizations since payments from a DAF to an investment advisor who is considered a donor-advisor will be deemed a taxable distribution under §4966. The IRS is requesting additional comments on this potential issue and is still under consideration.

Exceptions to the Definition of a DAF Under the Proposed Regulations:

  • A multiple donor fund or account will not be a DAF if no donor or donor-advisor has, or reasonably expects to have, advisory privileges.
  • An account or fund that is established to make distributions solely to a single public charity or governmental entity for public purposes is not considered a DAF.
  • A DAF does not include a fund that exclusively makes grants for certain scholarship funds related to travel, study or other similar purposes.
  • Disaster relief funds are not DAFs, provided they comply with other requirements.

Applicability Date: The proposed regulations will apply to taxable years ending on or after the date on which final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

EILEEN GONZALEZ ET AL V. LUIS O. CHIONG ET AL (SEP. 19, 2023)

Miami Circuit Court enters significant judgment for liability related to ownership of golf cart.

Eileen Gonzalez and Luis Chiong and their families were neighbors in a Miami suburb. The families were good friends and had many social interactions. Luis owned a golf cart which he constantly allowed to be driven and used by other people and Eileen’s minor children were often passengers on this specific golf cart.

Luis’ step-niece, Zabryna Acuna, was visiting for July 4th weekend in 2016. Zabryna (age 16 at that time) visited often and during each visit, she had permission to drive the golf cart. On July 4, 2016, Zabryna took the golf cart for a drive with Luis’ son and Eileen’s minor children as passengers.

While driving on a public street, Zabryna ran a stop sign and collided with another car which caused all of the passenger to be ejected from the golf cart. Every passenger suffered injuries, however, Eileen’s son, Devin, suffered a particularly catastrophic brain injury. This led to an eventual lawsuit.

The Circuit Court ruled that Luis owed the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care which he breached and was negligent in entrusting the golf cart to his niece who negligently operated it causing the crash and injuries at issue. The Court further held that pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, a golf cart is a dangerous instrumentality, and the dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts it to an individual whose negligent operation if it causes damage to another.

Ultimately, the Court awarded a total judgment of $50,100,000 (approximately $46,100,000 to Devin and approximately $4,000,000 to his parents).

IR-2023-185 (OCT 5, 2023)

The IRS warns of Art Valuation Schemes (Oct 5, 2023).

The IRS essentially issued a warning to taxpayers that they will be increasing investigations and taxpayer audits for incorrect or aggressively creative deductions with respect to donations of art. Additionally, the IRS is paying attention to art promoters who are involved in such schemes.

The IRS is warning taxpayers to exercise caution when approached by art promoters who are commonly attempting to facilitate the following specific scheme wherein: (i) a taxpayer is encouraged to purchase art at a significantly discounted price; (ii) the taxpayer is then advised to hold the art for a period of at least one year; and (iii) the taxpayer subsequently donates the art to a charity (often times a charity arranged by the promoter) and claim a tax deduction at an inflated market value, often significantly more than the original purchase price.

This increased scrutiny has led to over 60 completed audits with many more in process and has led to more than $5,000,000 in additional tax.

The IRS reminds taxpayers that they are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the information reported on their tax return regardless of whether they were enticed by an outside promoter. Therefore, the IRS has provided the following red flags with respect to the purchase of artwork: (i) taxpayers should be wary of buying multiple works by the same artist that have little to no market value outside of what a promoter is advertising; and (ii) when the appraisal coordinated by a promoter fails to adequately describe the artwork (such rarity, age, quality, condition, stature of the artist, etc.).

Within the Notice, the IRS details the tax reporting requirements for donations of art. Specifically, whenever a taxpayer intends to claim a charitable contribution deduction of over $20,000 for an art donation, they must provide the following: (i) the name and address of the charitable organization that received it; (ii) the date and location of the contribution; (iii) a detailed description of the donated art; (iv) a contemporaneous written acknowledgement of the contribution form the charitable organization; (v) completed Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contribution, Section A and B including signatures of the qualified appraiser and done; and (vi) attach a copy of the qualified appraisal to the tax return. They may also be asked to provide a high-resolution photo or digital image.

NEW YORK PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AMENDED TO PERMIT REMOTE WITNESSES FOR HEALTH CARE PROXIES (NOV 17, 2023)

An amendment to Section 2981 of New York Public Health Law was signed into law by the governor on November 17, 2023.

Section 2981 was amended to add a new subdivision 2-a, as follows:

2-A. Alternate procedure for witnessing health care proxies. Witnessing a health care proxy under this section may be done using audio-video technology, for either or both witnesses, provided that the following conditions are met:

  1. The principal, if not personally known to a remote witness, shall display valid photographic identification to the remote witness during the audio-video conference;
  2. The audio-video conference shall allow for direction interaction between the principal and any remote witness;
  3. Any remote witness shall receive a legible copy of the health care proxy, which shall be transmitted via facsimile or electronic means, within 24 hours of the proxy being signed by the principal during the conference; and
  4. The remote witness shall sign the transmitted copy of the proxy and return it to the principal.

SMALL BUSINESS SUCCESSION PLANNING ACT INTRODUCED (OCT 12, 2023)

On October 12, 2023, the Small Business Succession Planning Act was introduced to provide businesses with resources to plan successions, including a one-time $250 credit to create a business succession plan and an additional one-time $250 tax credit when the plan is executed.

Under the proposed Bill, the SBA will provide a “toolkit” to assist small business concerns in establishing a business succession plan, including:

  1. Training resource partners on the toolkit;
  2. Educating small business concerns about the program;
  3. Ensuring that each SBA district office has an employee with the specific responsibility of providing counseling to small business concerns on the use of such toolkit; and
  4. Hold workshops or events on business succession planning.

Pursuant to the proposed Act, the following credits would be available:

  1. $250 for the first taxable year during which the SBA certifies that the taxpayer has: (a) established a business succession plan; (b) is a small business concern at that time; and (c) does not provide for substantially all of the interests or assets to be acquire by one or more entities that are not a small business concern.
  2. An additional $250 for the first taxable year which the SBA certifies that the taxpayer has successfully completed the items described above.

Look-back Rule: If substantially all of the equity interests in business are acquired by an entity that is not a small business concern within three-years of establishment of a business succession plan or completion of such responsibilities (as the case may be) the credits will be subject to recapture.

Small Business Concern (defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act): A business entity that (a) is legal entity that is independently owned and operated; and (b) is not dominant in its field of operation and does not exceed the relevant small business size standard (subject to standards and number of employees provided by the North American Industry Classification System).

Henry J. Leibowitz, Caroline Q. Robbins, Jay D. Waxenberg, and Joshua B. Glaser contributed to this article.

© 2023 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on Wealth Management in 2024, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Corporate Transparency Act – What You Need to Know

Beginning on January 1, 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department will be implementing heightened transparency disclosure requirements on US corporate entities. These new requirements include disclosing all beneficial owners of US corporate entities for the purpose of preventing white collar crime including money laundering, terrorism financing, and drug trafficking. The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was passed in early 2021 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) which is a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The CTA will require US corporate entities, such as corporations and LLCs, as well as other entities that fall under the CTA reporting requirements to disclose their ultimate Beneficial Owner Information (“BOI”). A beneficial owner is defined as an individual who, directly or indirectly, either (i) exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. Certain foreign entities registered to do business in the United States may also be required to file disclosures under the CTA. Although the CTA’s requirements cover a large range of companies, many entities will benefit from an exemption from the reporting requirement including financial institutions, companies with SEC reporting obligations, insurance companies, accounting firms, certain large operating companies, etc. BOI information that will be required includes the name(s) of the individuals that ultimately own the reporting company, their date of birth, address, and a government-issued identification. BOI requirements specify that it must be the individuals that ultimately own a reporting company that are disclosed, and not simply the identity of the shareholders or the members of an intermediary holding company.

TIMING OF DISCLOSURE FILINGS

Entities created before January 1, 2024, have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial BOI report while entities created after January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI reports within 30 calendar days of their creation or registration. FinCEN recently issued a notice whereby this 30-day rule may be extended to 90 days for 2024 filings, and the 30-day period would apply for filings made during the 2025 year.

ELECTRONIC FILING

Filing BOI reports will be done electronically through an online interface. FinCEN is currently designing and building a new IT system called the Beneficial Ownership Secure System to collect and store CTA reports, but this system will not be available for filing purposes until January 1st, 2024. According to FinCEN, the filing system will be secure, and the information provided to FinCEN will not be accessible by the public but may be disclosed to other government agencies.

MISTAKES AND CHANGES TO FILING

If any inaccuracies are identified in a BOI report already made by a reporting company, FinCEN has stated a correction must be made within 30 days. This makes the reporting obligation a rolling requirement, and not merely an annual reporting mechanism.

PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE

Deliberate non-compliance or providing false information to FinCEN can result in penalties up to $500 for each day of the violation. Criminal penalties include imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine up to $10,000. Penalties are also applied to companies who are aware of or have reason to know of any error or inaccuracy in the information contained in any previously filed report and fail to correct it within 30 days.

© 2023 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

OFAC Reaffirms Focus on Virtual Currency With Updated Sanctions Law Guidance

On October 15, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) announced updated guidance for virtual currency companies in meeting their obligations under US sanctions laws. On the same day, OFAC also issued guidance clarifying various cryptocurrency-related definitions.

Coming on the heels of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020—and in the context of the Biden administration’s effort to crackdown on ransomware attacks—the recent guidance is the latest indication that regulators are increasingly focusing on virtual currency and blockchain. In light of these developments, virtual currency market participants and service providers should ensure they are meeting their respective sanctions obligations by employing a “risk-based” anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program.

This update highlights the government’s continued movement toward subjecting the virtual currency industry to the same requirements, scrutiny and consequences in cases of noncompliance as applicable to traditional financial institutions.

IN DEPTH

The release of OFAC’s Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry indicates an increasing expectation for diligence as it has now made clear on several occasions that sanctions compliance “obligations are the same” for virtual currency companies who must employ an unspecified “risk-based” program (See: OFAC Consolidated Frequently asked Questions 560). OFAC published it with the stated goal of “help[ing] the virtual currency industry prevent exploitation by sanctioned persons and other illicit actors.”

With this release, OFAC also provided some answers and updates to two of its published sets of “Frequently Asked Questions.”

FAQ UPDATES (FAQ 559 AND 546)

All are required to comply with the US sanctions compliance program, including persons and entities in the virtual currency and blockchain community. OFAC has said time and again that a “risk-based” program is required but that “there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for all circumstances” (See: FAQ 560). While market participants and service providers in the virtual currency industry must all comply, the risk of violating US sanctions are most acute for certain key service providers, such as cryptocurrency exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) desks that facilitate large volumes of virtual currency transactions.

OFAC previously used the term “digital currency” when it issued its first FAQ and guidance on the subject (FAQ 560), which stated that sanctions compliance is applicable to “digital currency” and that OFAC “may include as identifiers on the [Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons] SDN List specific digital currency addresses associated with blocked persons.” Subsequently, OFAC placed certain digital currency addresses on the SDN List as identifiers.

While OFAC previously used the term “digital currency,” in more recent FAQs and guidance, it has used a combination of the terms “digital currency” and “virtual currency” without defining those terms until it released FAQ 559.

In FAQ 559, OFAC defines “virtual currency” as “a digital representation of value that functions as (i) a medium of exchange; (ii) a unit of account; and/or (iii) a store of value; and is neither issued nor granted by any jurisdiction.” This is a broad definition but likely encompasses most assets, which are commonly referred to as “cryptocurrency” or “tokens,” as most of these assets may be considered as “mediums of exchange.”

OFAC also defines “digital currency” as “sovereign cryptocurrency, virtual currency (non-fiat), and a digital representation of fiat currency.” This definition appears to be an obvious effort by OFAC to make clear that its definitions include virtual currencies issued or backed by foreign governments and stablecoins.

The reference to “sovereign cryptocurrency” is focused on cryptocurrency issued by foreign governments, such as Venezuela. This is not the first time OFAC has focused on sovereign cryptocurrency. It ascribed the use of sovereign backed cryptocurrencies as a high-risk vector for US sanctions circumvention. Executive Order (EO) 13827, which was issued on March 19, 2018, explicitly stated:

In light of recent actions taken by the Maduro regime to attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions by issuing a digital currency in a process that Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly has denounced as unlawful, hereby order as follows: Section 1. (a) All transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, and digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited as of the effective date of this order.

On March 19, 2018, OFAC issued FAQs 564, 565 and 566, which were specifically focused on Venezuela issued cryptocurrencies, stating that “petro” and “petro gold” are considered a “digital currency, digital coin, or digital token” subject to EO 13827. While OFAC has not issued specific FAQs or guidance on other sovereign backed cryptocurrencies, it may be concerned that a series of countries have stated publicly that they plan to test and launch sovereign backed securities, including Russia, Iran, China, Japan, England, Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, Singapore and India. With the release if its most recent FAQs, OFAC is reaffirming that it views sovereign cryptocurrencies as highly risky and well within the scope of US sanctions programs.

The reference to a “digital representation of fiat currency” appears to be a reference to “stablecoins.” In theory, stablecoins are each worth a specified value in fiat currency (usually one USD each). Most stablecoins were touted as being completely backed by fiat currency stored in segregated bank accounts. The viability and safety of stablecoins, however, has recently been called into question. One of the biggest players in the stablecoin industry is Tether, who was recently fined $41 million by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission for failing to have the appropriate fiat reserves backing its highly popular stablecoin US Dollar Token (USDT). OFAC appears to have taken notice and states in its FAQ that “digital representations of fiat currency” are covered by its regulations and FAQs.

FAQ 646 provides some guidance on how cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers should implement a “block” on virtual currency. Any US persons (or persons subject to US jurisdiction), including financial institutions, are required under US sanctions programs to “block” assets, which requires freezing assets and notifying OFAC within 10 days. (See: 31 C.F.R. § 501.603 (b)(1)(i).) FAQ 646 makes clear that “blocking” obligations applies to virtual currency and also indicates that OFAC expects cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers be required to “block” the virtual currency at issue and freeze all other virtual currency wallets “in which a blocked person has an interest.”

Depending on the strength of the anti-money laundering/know-your-customer (AML/KYC) policies employed, it will likely prove difficult for cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers to be sure that they have identified all associated virtual currency wallets in which a “blocked person has an interest.” It is possible that a cryptocurrency exchange could onboard a customer who complied with an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy and, unbeknownst to the cryptocurrency exchange, a blocked person “has an interest” in one of the virtual currency wallets. It remains to be seen how OFAC will employ this “has an interest” standard and whether it will take any cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to task for not blocking virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.” It is important for cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to implement an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy to defend any inquiries from OFAC as to whether it has complied with the various US sanctions programs, including by having the ability to identify other virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.”

UPDATED SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE GUIDANCE

OFAC’s recent framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments outlines five essential components for a virtual currency operator’s sanctions compliance program. These components generally track those applicable to more traditional financial institutions and include:

  1. Senior management should ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the support of compliance, that a competent sanctions compliance officer is appointed and that adequate independence is granted to the compliance unit to carry out their role.
  2. An operative risk assessment should be fashioned to reflect the unique exposure of the company. OFAC maintains both a public use sanctions list and a free search tool for that list which should be employed to identify and prevent sanctioned individuals and entities from accessing the company’s services.
  3. Internal controls must be put in place that address the unique risks recognized by the company’s risk assessment. OFAC does not have a specific software or hardware requirement regarding internal controls.
    1. Although OFAC does not specify required internal controls, it does provide recommended best practices. These include geolocation tools with IP address blocking controls, KYC procedures for both individuals and entities, transaction monitoring and investigation software that can review historically identified bad actors, the implementation of remedial measures upon internal discovery of weakness in sanction compliance, sanction screening and establishing risk indicators or red flags that require additional scrutiny when triggered.
    2. Additionally, information should be obtained upon the formation of each new customer relationship. A formal due diligence plan should be in place and operated sufficiently to alert the service provider to possible sanctions-related alarms. Customer data should be maintained and updated through the lifecycle of that customer relationship.
  4. To ensure an entity’s sanctions compliance program is effective and efficient, that entity should regularly test their compliance against independent objective testing and auditing functions.
  5. Proper training must be provided to a company’s workforce. For a company’s sanctions compliance program to be effective, its workforce must be properly outfitted with the hard and soft skills required to execute its compliance program. Although training programs may vary, OFAC training should be provided annually for all employees.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

As noted in OFAC’s press release issued simultaneously with the updated FAQ’s, “[t]hese actions are a part of the Biden Administration’s focused, integrated effort to counter the ransomware threat.” The Biden administration’s increased focus on regulatory and enforcement action in the virtual currency space highlights the importance for market participants and service providers to implement a robust compliance program. Cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers must take special care in drafting and implementing their respective AML/KYC policies and in ensuring the existence of risk-based AML and sanctions compliance programs, which includes a periodic training program. When responding to inquiries from OFAC or other regulators, it will be critical to have documented evidence of the implementation of a risk-based AML/KYC program and proof that employees have been appropriately trained on all applicable policies, including a sanctions compliance policy.

Article By Joseph B. Evans, Edward B. Diskant, and Alexandra C. Scheibe of McDermott Will & Emery.

Ethan Heller, a law clerk in the firm’s New York office, also contributed to this article.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For the latest in Financial, Securities, and Banking legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

Q&A with Danish Hamid of DLA Piper on Recent Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) Developments

Danish (DAA-n’sh) Hamid is a partner with DLA Piper’s Washington DC office. For the past 20 years, he has led an international practice that focuses on the intersection of corporate, compliance, and investigations matters. More recently, Hamid finds himself spending a significant amount of his time advising US and non-US clients on the national security implications of their foreign investment deals and whether those transactions could raise concerns with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is an interagency committee chaired by US Treasury Secretary and is responsible for screening foreign investments in US businesses and certain real estate to determine whether such transactions can impair US national security. If CFIUS identifies material concerns, it can advise parties to restructure or withdraw from their deal or recommend that the US President block or unwind the transaction. Hamid has conducted numerous CFIUS due diligence reviews, advised clients on CFIUS risk-mitigation strategies, and has successfully represented parties with filings before CFIUS. He regularly speaks and writes on CFIUS matters with the goal of clarifying the regulatory complexities in this area for a non-lawyer audience. Hamid also brings a unique perspective with respect to CFIUS concerns given that he has led M&A deals in the past as a corporate lawyer and has now transitioned towards a more regulatory-focused practice. With this in mind, the NLR asked Hamid to provide the following insights regarding recent CFIUS developments:

CFIUS has been empowered by the Department of the Treasury with more staff and funding to monitor transactions not voluntarily reported. What does this mean for companies who are involved or accepting foreign investment?

The fact that CFIUS is devoting greater resources and budget towards monitoring non-notified transactions means that CFIUS may ask parties involved in those deals to explain why they did not submit a filing to CFIUS. If that explanation is not compelling, CFIUS may direct them to submit a filing and possibly apply a more rigorous review standard with respect to that filing. CFIUS may also impose a civil penalty on transaction parties (in some cases up to the value of the investment itself) if they did not file mandatory filing on their own initiative prior to closing if one was otherwise required. Relevant regulations permit CFIUS to impose that penalty on any transaction party that violates the mandatory filing requirement. Given these circumstances, transaction parties conduct CFIUS due diligence reviews to determine whether their deals will trigger a mandatory CFIUS filing or merit a voluntary submission to CFIUS.

CFIUS had an increased jurisdiction scope under Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) in January of 2020. What impact has this had on the landscape in the intervening months?

CFIUS’s expanded jurisdiction under FIRRMA has caused more transaction parties to consider whether their deals trigger a filing. We have also observed an increase in the number of filings with CFIUS.

CFIUS has set up a webpage to accept tips and other information from the public on transactions not reported to the agency–how does this change the landscape?  Is it important for companies to be aware of this formalizing of a previously informal process? 

The fact that CFIUS is now actively seeking public tips on non-notified transactions is a relevant factor that transaction parties will need to evaluate when deciding whether to submit a CFIUS filing. There is a risk that CFIUS may receive public tips from a variety of sources such as disgruntled employees of US target companies or competitors to foreign investors in or acquirers of US businesses.

On Friday, Aug. 14, 2020, the president signed an executive order (EO) demanding the unwinding of a Chinese company’s acquisition of what would become TikTok–in your opinion, is this a sign of things to come?  What does this indicate about the current landscape of CFIUS and transactions with companies with access to American’s personal data?

It may be early to conclude if this is a sign of things to come. However, it has certainly captured the attention of CFIUS practitioners. Of course, separate from the EO, FIRRMA and recent regulations already made it fairly clear that CFIUS is interested in foreign investments in certain US companies that maintain or access sensitive data regarding US citizens.

Do you anticipate any major changes with CFIUS in light of the 2020 election?

Yes, we anticipate further regulatory developments impacting CFIUS. Just recently, the Treasury Department issued new regulations that went into effect on October 15th and have the potential of expanding the circumstances that trigger mandatory CFIUS filings. Those new rules seek to better align the CFIUS regime with US export controls by requiring parties to submit a mandatory CFIUS filing with respect to certain foreign investments in or acquisitions of US businesses involved with critical technologies for which a US regulatory authorization would otherwise be required. In addition, US export controls are evolving, which will invariably impact the CFIUS regime.

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on CFIUS, visit the National Law Review Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.