December 16, 2022
Volume XII, Number 350
December 16, 2022
– The Continued Importance of PPP Appeals by: Theodora McCormick and Robert Lufrano
– Jack Daniel’s vs.Bad Spaniels by: Jeanne Hamburg
– Rule 10b5-1 Amendments Adopted by the SEC by: Erin Reeves McGinnis
– Intellectual Property Law: Looking Forward to 2023 by: Dorothy R.Auth Ph.D.and Howard Wizenfeld
– 12 Days of CRM: Day 2 – The Origins of Bad Data [VIDEO] by: Christina R.Fritsch JD
– FTC Starts Long-Awaited Green Guides Review by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
– Commissioner Uyeda Warns Of Looming Item 402 Letter Deficit, But…by: Keith Paul Bishop
December 15, 2022
– Festive NLRB Provides Holiday Gifts to Unions/Employees by: Robert E.
Entin
– OCC Revises Policies and Procedures for Civil Money Penalties by: Moorari Shah and A.J.S.Dhaliwal
– Battle Lines Drawn on Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Specifics by: William Ball
– Emerging Threats: Cyber Attacks and Side-Channel Evolution by: Iliana L.Peters and Colin H.
Black
– Guide to Creating a Corrective Action Plan Template by: Dr.Nick Oberheiden
– Ten Environmental and Energy Issues to Watch in 2023 by: J.
Michael Showalter and Amy Antoniolli
– S.D.N.Y.Voids ERISA Plan’s Arbitration Provision by: Joseph E Clark and Daniel B.Wesson
– DHS Issues Guidance on Additional H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural…
by: Jessica Feinstein
– 12 Days of CRM: Day 1 – How to Measure CRM Success by: Christina R.Fritsch JD
– Staff Says Some Non-GAAP Financial Disclosures Are Beyond Redemptive…by: Keith Paul Bishop
– Full Speed Ahead: District Court Entitled to Explore Litigation…
by: Amol Parikh
– Economically Motivated Adulteration in Honey by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
– China Announces New Management Measures for Food-Related Products by: David J.Ettinger and Eric Gu
– Ratings Agencies Increase Focus on “Green Ratings” by: Jacob H.Hupart
– Applying Collateral Estoppel in IPRs by: Alexandra Cavazos, PhD
– The Ultimate Lawyer Time Off Checklist by: Kamron Sanders
– PTO Announces Cancer Moonshot Expedited Examination Pilot Program by: Bernard P.Codd
– Do Law Firms Use HubSpot? by: CRM News and Updates, Lawmatics
– The State of ESG Reporting in Australia by: Clive Cachia and Adam Levine
December 14, 2022
– Certain Green Cards Getting 24-Month Extensions as USCIS Deals With…by: Michael H.Neifach
– Australia: Climate and Sustainability-Related Financial Disclosure…
by: Jim Bulling
– New Washington State Guidance A Reminder That More State Pay…by: Aaron Vance
– NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators by: Mark J.Neuberger
– Illinois Appellate Court Weighs in on Biometric Data Policies by: David M.Poell and Kari M.Rollins
– FTC Issues Green Guides Questionnaire by: Phyllis H.Marcus
– Webinar Recording: Navigating Today’s Privacy Compliance…by: Cynthia J.Larose
– US Executive Branch Update – December 14, 2022 by: Stacy A.
Swanson
– AML Bill Key to Busting Russian Oligarchs by: Stephen M.Kohn and Grace Schepis
– New York State Provides Protection for Use of Leaves of Absence by: Jonathan A.Wexler
– US Executive Branch Update – December 13, 2022 by: Stacy A.Swanson
– Looking Ahead to 2023: Pay Transparency Developments by: Allan S Bloom and Evandro C Gigante
– What Does 2023 Hold for California COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick…by: Benjamin A.Tulis
– AND ANOTHER ONE! TCPA CLASS DISCOVERY LIMITED: Third Party Subpoena…by: Jenniffer Cabrera
– Speak Out Act Takes Effect, Enhanced Data Privacy Obligations for…by: George Carroll Whipple, III
– California Starts Mandating Employee Bereavement Leave in 2023 by: Paul R.
Lynd
– GREAT LEGAL WORK: TCPA Defendant Wins a HUGE Certification Victory…by: Eric J.Troutman
– 401(k) Compliance Check #12: Don’t Borrow Trouble – Correcting…by: Belinda S.Morgan
– FDA Published Food Safety Culture Literature Review by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
– Does a business have to provide a privacy notice directly to a…by: David A.Zetoony
– New Privacy Enforcement Act Commences in Australia by: Cameron Abbott and Rob Pulham
– NYC Delays Enforcement of Automated Employment Decision Tools Law to…by: Lindsay Colvin Stone
– U.S.
Department of State to Update Design on Nonimmigrant and…by: Ashley K.
Kerr
– Cannon Fire: Newly-Famous Judge Stays All Discovery in TCPA Class…by: Eric J.Troutman
– Why Do Law Firms Need CRM? by: CRM News and Updates, Lawmatics
– This California Rule by: Keith Paul Bishop
– UK Parliament Considers Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill…by: Emma Thomson
December 13, 2022
– DOL Issues Final Rule Amending Investment Duties Regulation –…
by: James Frazier
– Third time lucky or Schrems III? The European Union Data Pact with…by: Diletta De Cicco and James Downes
– Renewed Era of Crypto Assets Growth in Hong Kong by: Jay Lee
– Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA…by: Paul V.Kelly
– U.S.Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case Testing Limits of…by: Michelle E.
Phillips and Christopher M.Repole
– Damages in Pre-Certification Discovery are Premature, Discovery…by: Jenniffer Cabrera
– When Chains Change, Do NFTs Stay The Same? How Hard Forks May Affect…
by: Jason H.
Finger
Danske Bank Pleads Guilty, Agrees to Pay More Than $2 Billion in Coordinated Resolution of Investigations into Fraud Related to Its Anti-Money Laundering Controls
Introduction
On Dec.13, 2022, the Department of Justice announced that Danish global financial institution Danske A/S (Danske Bank) pled guilty and agreed to forfeit $2 billion to resolve an investigation into fraudulent representations it made to U.S.banks about its anti-money laundering (AML) controls in Estonia.As part of a parallel proceeding, the SEC also announced that Danske Bank agreed to pay $413 million to settle charges for misleading investors about its Estonian AML compliance program and failing to disclose risks posed by the program’s deficiencies.
Danske Bank, Denmark’s largest financial institution, has been embroiled in controversy for several years, following allegations that its small Estonian branch lacked adequate AML controls, causing it to facilitate the movement of potentially criminal proceeds from Russia and other former Soviet states.
The DOJ plea and SEC settlement are part of a global resolution between Danske Bank and the SEC, the DOJ, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS), and Denmark’s Special Crime Unit.
Overview of DOJ Settlement
DOJ’s investigation focused on Danske Bank’s interactions with U.S.financial institutions and the ways in which Danske Bank’s AML compliance failures exposed the U.S.financial system to criminal proceeds.The investigation revealed that, between 2008 and 2016, employees of Danske Bank’s Estonia branch conspired with non-resident customers to shield the true nature of their transactions, including by using shell companies to obscure fund ownership.On behalf of the non-resident customers, Danske Bank Estonia processed $160 billion through U.S.
banks.
DOJ alleged, and Danske Bank ultimately admitted, that the bank defrauded U.S.financial institutions by providing false information about its AML controls and the risks posed by its Estonian customers in order to induce U.S.banks to open or maintain U.S.dollar accounts for Danske Bank Estonia.
To resolve the DOJ’s criminal investigation, Danske Bank pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and agreed to forfeit more than $2 billion.
Overview of SEC Settlement
The SEC, led by the Salt Lake Regional Office, charged Danske Bank with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for misrepresenting, and for failing to timely disclose, known misconduct and widespread AML failures to its investors.To settle the charges, Danske Bank agreed to $178.6 million in disgorgement, $55.8 million in prejudgment interest, and $178.6 million in a civil penalty.
In agreeing to a coordinated resolution with multiple agencies, both in the United States and in Denmark, Danske will be able to receive credit for certain payments made to other participating agencies, consistent with DOJ’s so-called anti-piling-on policy.
Key Takeaways
The Danske Bank resolutions mark the latest in a growing trend of aggressive government scrutiny of the sufficiency of financial institutions’ AML programs.
As this case demonstrates, small branches can pose a particular risk for money laundering in the absence of adequate oversight.
These resolutions also confirm that U.S.authorities will not shy away from exercising jurisdiction over non-U.S.financial institutions if the conduct at issue meaningfully affects the U.S.
financial system.As Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco cautioned in announcing the guilty plea, “Whether you are a U.S.or foreign bank, if you use the U.S.financial system, you must comply with our laws.
We expect companies to invest in robust compliance programs—including at newly acquired or far-flung subsidiaries—and to step up and own up to misconduct when it occurs.Failure to do so may well be a one-way ticket to a multi-billion-dollar guilty plea.”
Financial institutions should ensure that AML controls are adequately tailored to customer risk and adequately implemented throughout the organization, including within branches and subsidiaries.Special care should also be taken with any representations made to partner financial institutions within the United States..
