[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33702-33718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11431]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103

RIN 1506-AA58


Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Anti-Money Laundering 
Programs for Dealers in Precious Metals, Stones, or Jewels

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (``FinCEN''), Treasury.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing this interim final rule to prescribe minimum 
standards applicable to dealers in jewels, precious metals, or precious 
stones, pursuant to the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 that 
require financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering 
programs. This rule is being issued as an interim final rule because 
FinCEN is seeking additional public comment on several aspects of the 
interim final rule. These issues are addressed in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section under the heading ``Request for Comments.'' We also 
are providing questions and answers to assist businesses in 
understanding how the interim final rule operates, and in determining 
whether and when a business's operations are covered by the interim 
final rule. These questions and answers appear in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section under the heading ``Frequently Asked Questions.''

DATES: Effective Date: This interim final rule is effective July 11, 
2005.
    Applicability Date: The requirement that dealers develop and 
implement an anti-money laundering program applies as provided in 31 
CFR 103.140(d).
    Submission of Comments: Comments on the issues raised in the 
``Request for Comments'' portion of this document must be received 
before July 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1506-AA58, by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal e-rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected]. Include RIN 1506-
AA58 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: FinCEN, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Include RIN 
1506-AA58 in the body of the text.

[[Page 33703]]

    Instructions: It is preferable for comments to be submitted by 
electronic mail because paper mail in the Washington, DC, area may be 
delayed. Please submit comments by one method only. All submissions 
received must include the agency name and the Regulatory Information 
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.fincen.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Comments may be inspected at FinCEN between 10 
a.m. and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room in Washington, DC. Persons 
wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment 
by telephoning (202) 354-6400 (not a toll-free number).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Policy and Programs 
Division (FinCEN), (800) 949-2732 (toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statutory Provisions

    The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Public Law 91-508, as amended, codified 
at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-
5332, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations 
requiring financial institutions to keep records and file reports that 
are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, 
and regulatory matters, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-
intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism, and 
to implement counter-money laundering programs and compliance 
procedures.\1\ Regulations implementing Title II of the BSA (codified 
at 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.) appear at 31 CFR part 103. The authority of 
the Secretary to administer the BSA has been delegated to the Director 
of FinCEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Language expanding the scope of the BSA to intelligence or 
counter-intelligence activities to protect against international 
terrorism was added by section 358 of the Uniting and Strengthening 
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (the USA Patriot Act), 
Public Law 107-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 5318(h), added to the BSA in 1992 by 
section 1517 of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, authorize 
the Secretary of the Treasury ``[i]n order to guard against money 
laundering through financial institutions * * * [to] require financial 
institutions to carry out anti-money laundering programs.'' 31 U.S.C. 
5318(h)(1). Those programs may include ``the development of internal 
policies, procedures, and controls;'' ``the designation of a compliance 
officer;'' ``an ongoing employee training program;'' and ``an 
independent audit function to test programs.'' 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1)(A-
D).
    On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the USA Patriot 
Act. Section 352 of the USA Patriot Act, which became effective April 
24, 2002, amended 31 U.S.C. 5318(h) of the BSA to require, and not 
merely authorize, anti-money laundering programs for all financial 
institutions defined in the BSA. Section 352(c) of the USA Patriot Act 
directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations for anti-money 
laundering programs that are ``commensurate with the size, location, 
and activities'' of the financial institutions to which such 
regulations apply.
    Although a dealer in ``precious metals, stones, or jewels'' 
(``dealer'') has long been listed as a financial institution under the 
BSA, 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(N), FinCEN has not previously defined the 
term or issued regulations regarding dealers. On April 29, 2002, FinCEN 
deferred the anti-money laundering program requirement contained in 31 
U.S.C. 5318(h) that would have applied to a number of new industries, 
including dealers. The purpose of the deferral was to provide FinCEN 
with time to study the industries and to consider how anti-money 
laundering controls could best be applied to them.\2\ This rule defines 
the term dealer and describes the required elements of a dealer's anti-
money laundering program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 31 CFR 103.170, as codified by interim final rule 
published at 67 FR 21110 (April 29, 2002), as amended at 67 FR 67547 
(November 6, 2002) and corrected at 67 FR 68935 (November 14, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Money Laundering Cases Involving Dealers

    The statutory mandate that financial institutions establish an 
anti-money laundering program is a key element in the national effort 
to prevent and detect money laundering and the financing of terrorism, 
and recognizes that financial institutions other than depository 
institutions (which have long been subject to BSA requirements) are 
vulnerable to money laundering. Precious metals, precious stones, and 
jewels are easily transportable, highly concentrated forms of wealth 
and can be highly attractive to money launderers and other criminals, 
including those involved in the financing of terrorism. Recent cases 
demonstrate various ways in which precious metals, precious stones, and 
jewels can be used for illicit purposes. In particular, these cases 
demonstrate the risks involved in accepting third-party payments, and 
the importance of conducting reasonable inquiries when a customer's 
requests seem unusual.
    Although the following two examples involve dealers who were acting 
in complicity with the illegal activity of their customers, they 
demonstrate money laundering methodologies that also could be conducted 
through unwary dealers. First, a Federal grand jury indictment 
illustrates the money laundering risks associated with the use of 
third-party payments.\3\ A jewelry wholesaler pled guilty to laundering 
money by accepting third-party payments in drug proceeds for 
merchandise purchased by its retailer clients. A review of the 
wholesaler's records revealed several unusual patterns, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. v. Speed Joyeros, S.A., 204 F. Supp. 2d 412 (E.D.N.Y. 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Many instances in which the wholesaler received payment 
for merchandise from a party other than the purchaser (third-party 
payments); and
     Numerous examples of unusual check activity including 
payment in the form of sequentially numbered checks, multiple checks 
from the same account drawn on the same date, checks with no identified 
payor, payments drawn on a bank located in a county different from the 
country in which the purchaser lived, and checks paid through foreign 
countries.
    Second, the results of the recently conducted Operation Meltdown 
demonstrate the importance of conducting reasonable inquiries when a 
customer's requests seem unusual. This money laundering scheme involved 
the use of couriers to deliver cash to gold dealers. The dealers 
exchanged the cash for gold and other precious commodities, which were 
then smuggled out of the United States. To make the gold less easily 
detected by inspectors, the gold dealers sometimes molded the gold into 
common items, such as tools, belt buckles, or light switches, or 
painted it.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. v. Ramerez, 313 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of suspicious activity reports filed with FinCEN by 
depository institutions also reveals instances in which banks and 
others suspected the involvement of dealers in unusual transactions. 
Several suspicious activity reports describe the use of bulk amounts of 
sequentially numbered U.S. money orders and traveler's checks deposited 
abroad. The money orders and traveler's checks were purchased for the 
maximum face value, and then were used to purchase diamonds and gems at

[[Page 33704]]

dealers located in foreign countries. One suspicious activity report 
was filed by a U.S. bank that became suspicious about a series of 
checks payable to U.S. suppliers and issued on behalf of a foreign gold 
and gem company from a correspondent account at the bank. The bank 
contacted the correspondent for additional details about the 
transactions, and found that the invoice amounts did not correspond 
with the check amounts. Although there can be legitimate reasons for 
both making payments that do not match invoices and using sequentially 
numbered money orders or traveler's checks (such as limitations on the 
maximum face amount of these instruments), their use can be indicia of 
money laundering.
    The Guidance for Financial Institutions in Detecting Terrorist 
Financing issued by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering 
(the ``FATF'') \5\ identifying vulnerabilities in financial industries 
on the financing of terrorism, includes an example involving a dealer. 
In this case, suspicious activity reports filed by several banks on two 
individuals and a diamond trading company identified high-volume 
unusual funds transfer activity to and from foreign countries, and the 
deposit of several large-value checks denominated in U.S. dollars. The 
financial intelligence unit of the country in which the filing banks 
are located learned from the police that, through these transactions, 
funds had been wired to a person suspected of buying diamonds on behalf 
of a terrorist organization.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FATF is an inter-governmental body whose purpose is the 
development and promotion of policies to combat money laundering. 
Originally created by the G-7 nations, its membership now includes 
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, 
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South 
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and 
the United States, as well as the European Commission and the Gulf 
Cooperation Council.
    \6\ Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, Guidance 
for Financial Institutions in Detecting Terrorist Financing, April 
24, 2002, at page 4 (see http://www.faft-gafi.org/pdf/GuidFITFOI_en.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vulnerabilities described above help demonstrate the need for 
an anti-money laundering program requirement for dealers to minimize 
the opportunity for abuse in this industry.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    This interim final rule is based on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking published February 21, 2003 (the ``NPRM'') (68 FR 8480). The 
NPRM sought to require dealers in jewels, precious metals, and precious 
stones to develop and implement written anti-money laundering programs 
appropriately tailored to the risk of money laundering or terrorism 
financing presented by their businesses. The NPRM focused on dealers, 
that is, businesses that both buy and sell these items, given FinCEN's 
conclusion that the most significant risks of money laundering or the 
financing of terrorism lie within those businesses that do both. 
Furthermore, the NPRM excluded most retailers from the scope of the 
regulation, based on the conclusion that retailers simply do not face 
the same level of risk. The elements of the anti-money laundering 
program outlined in the NPRM mirror those found in FinCEN's regulations 
for other types of financial institutions. The NPRM contained proposed 
definitions for the terms ``dealer,'' ``jewel,'' ``precious metal,'' 
and ``precious stone.''
    The comment period for the NPRM ended on April 22, 2003. FinCEN 
received a total of 29 comment letters. Of these, 16 were submitted by 
dealer and pawnbroker trade associations, five by law firms, four by 
individuals, three by pawnbrokers, and one by a manufacturer.

III. Summary of Comments and Revisions

A. Introduction

    The format of this interim final rule is generally consistent with 
the format of the rule proposed in the NPRM. The terms of the rule, 
however, differ from the terms of the NPRM in the following significant 
respects:
     The definitional threshold for a dealer has been revised 
from persons engaged in the purchase or sale, to persons engaged in the 
purchase and sale, of more than $50,000 in covered goods.
     The interim final rule contains a new defined term, 
``covered goods,'' which includes jewels, precious metals, and precious 
stones, and finished goods (including jewelry, numismatic items, and 
antiques), that derive 50 percent or more of their value from jewels, 
precious metals, or precious stones contained in or attached to such 
finished goods. The references to ``jewelry containing jewels, precious 
metals, or precious stones'' have been removed because such items are 
more specifically addressed within the new ``covered goods'' 
definition.
     Language has been added to clarify that the interim final 
rule only applies to U.S. dealers, i.e., dealers with a physical 
presence in the U.S.
     An explicit exception for pawnbrokers has been added to 
the interim final rule.
     An exception from the meaning of the terms ``purchase'' 
and ``sale'' for purposes of the definition of ``dealer'' has been 
created for certain trade-in transactions, as a result of which such 
transactions would not count toward the $50,000 definitional 
thresholds.
     The exception relating to the fabrication of finished 
goods containing minor amounts of jewels, precious metals, or precious 
stones is no longer necessary (and therefore has been removed) as a 
result of (1) the new ``covered goods'' definition, and (2) a new 
exception from the definition of ``dealer'' and the anti-money 
laundering program requirement for the purchase of jewels, precious 
metals, and precious stones that are incorporated into equipment and 
machinery to be used for industrial purposes, and the purchase and sale 
of such equipment and machinery.
     The definition of ``retailer'' appears as a separate 
definition, and clarifies that the term applies only to a U.S. person 
who sells covered goods primarily to the public.
     The $50,000 thresholds in the rule to determine whether a 
person is a dealer and whether a retailer is eligible for the retailer 
exemption have been clarified to provide that, with respect to finished 
goods, only the value of the jewels, precious metals, or precious 
stones contained in or attached to such finished goods needs to be 
taken into account.
     The rule has been revised to provide that the anti-money 
laundering program of a retailer that does not qualify for the retailer 
exception due to purchases from persons other than dealers or other 
retailers need only cover such purchases.
     Language has been added to require a dealer, when making 
the risk assessment required by the rule, to take into account the 
extent to which it engages in transactions with persons other than 
dealers subject to the rule.
     The definition of ``precious stone'' has been revised to 
include tanzanite.
     A risk factor has been revised to apply to attempts by a 
customer to maintain an ``unusual,'' rather then a ``high,'' degree of 
secrecy with respect to a transaction.
     The applicability date of the interim final rule has been 
extended to January 1, 2006, or not later than six months after the 
date a person becomes a dealer for purposes of the interim final rule.

[[Page 33705]]

B. Public Comments on the NPRM--Overview and General Issues

    Comments on the NPRM concentrated on three matters: (1) Application 
of the retail exception to retailers that buy from foreign-located 
sources; (2) application of the rule to pawnbrokers; and (3) 
application of the definition of ``purchase'' to trade-in transactions.
1. Application of Retailer Exception to Retailers that Purchase from 
Foreign-Located Sources
    The focus of a dealer's anti-money laundering program must be 
twofold: prevention and detection of money laundering and terrorist 
financing through the dealer by its customers, and prevention and 
detection of money laundering and terrorist financing through the 
dealer by its sources of supply. As explained in the NPRM, however, 
FinCEN has concluded that the risks of money laundering or terrorist 
financing are less significant in those businesses that engage 
primarily in retail sales of such products. As a result, the NPRM 
proposed to exclude certain retailers from the rule. To qualify for the 
proposed exception under the NPRM, a retailer would have had to 
purchase its products predominantly from other dealers subject to the 
NPRM. Specifically, under proposed section 103.140(a)(1)(ii)(A), the 
anti-money laundering program requirement would not apply to a retailer 
unless that retailer purchased annually more than $50,000 in jewels, 
precious metals, precious stones, or jewelry from persons that are not 
dealers. Persons that are not dealers subject to the rule would include 
members of the public, other U.S. persons not subject to the rule, 
and--for reasons of jurisdiction--foreign (non-U.S.) dealers in 
precious metals, precious stones, or jewels.
    Several commenters asserted that FinCEN did not provide proper 
notice required under the Administrative Procedure Act with respect to 
whether purchases by a retailer from non-U.S. sources would be included 
within the $50,000 threshold which, if exceeded, would disqualify a 
dealer from utilizing the retailer exception. FinCEN disagrees. The 
preamble to the NPRM stated that ``there is substantially less risk 
that a retailer who purchases goods exclusively or almost exclusively 
from dealers subject to the proposed rule will be abused by money 
launderers.'' See 68 FR 8482 (emphasis supplied). Although the NPRM did 
not explicitly state that the rule would only apply to dealers located 
in the United States, such dealers are the only persons that could have 
been the subject of the NPRM.
    Several commenters urged FinCEN to revise the retailer exception so 
that it would apply to retailers that purchase jewels, precious metals, 
precious stones, or jewelry, predominately from foreign-located 
sources. However, this approach would ignore the risk of money 
laundering and terrorist financing through a dealer's international 
source of supply.\7\ One commenter suggested extending the exception to 
retailers that purchase from foreign sources that are located in 
countries that are members of the FATF. The application of anti-money 
laundering measures to dealers has been emphasized by the international 
community as a key element in combating money laundering and terrorist 
financing.\8\ However, the fact that a country is a member of the FATF 
does not mean that the country requires dealers located within its 
borders to implement an anti-money laundering program, much less an 
anti-money laundering program that is similar to that contained in this 
interim final rule.\9\ Thus, to extend the exception in the manner 
suggested would be contrary to the rationale underlying the exception. 
Finally, several commenters suggested permitting retailers that buy 
from foreign sources to be excepted from the anti-money laundering 
requirement to the extent that they receive written assurances that 
their foreign sources of supply have taken steps to prevent and detect 
money laundering. Given the importance of the anti-money laundering 
requirement, FinCEN has determined that written assurances from a 
source of supply that is not subject to the requirements of this rule 
does not justify a complete exception from the rule. Such assurances, 
however, could be a factor in assessing the degree of risk inherent in 
a particular relationship and the degree of scrutiny that accordingly 
should be brought to bear on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See discussion of money laundering cases involving dealers, 
supra part I.B.
    \8\ In June 2003, FATF revised its Forty Recommendations to 
extend counter-money laundering and terrorist financing principles 
to dealers in precious metals and stones. Among the recommendations 
now applicable to dealers in precious metals and stones to the 
extent of transactions equal to or above $15,000 are those requiring 
customer due diligence, suspicious activity reporting, and record-
keeping requirements. In addition, Recommendation 16 extends the 
development of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing 
programs to dealers in precious metals and stones.
    \9\ Although several FATF member countries have enacted anti-
money laundering legislation that applies to dealers, the applicable 
requirements operate differently than those contained in this 
interim final rule. Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council Amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on 
Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of 
Money Laundering (December 4, 2001) requires dealers in high-value 
goods such as precious stones or metals (when transactions involve 
cash payments of 15,000 euro or more) to establish internal control 
and communication procedures for the purposes of detecting and 
preventing money laundering, including employee training. Many 
European Union members have enacted legislation consistent with this 
Directive. See, e.g., United Kingdom Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 
3075 Financial Services, Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (November 
28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the foregoing reasons, the interim final rule continues 
to provide that a retailer that sold more than $50,000 in covered goods 
during the prior year is not required to implement an anti-money 
laundering program unless it purchased during the prior year more than 
$50,000 in covered goods from persons other than dealers as defined in 
the interim final rule. In addition, language has been added to the 
retailer exception to ensure that a retailer's purchases from other 
retailers as defined in the interim final rule will not prohibit a 
retailer from taking advantage of the retailer exception. This change 
is intended to recognize the fact that retailers often purchase covered 
goods from other retailers, and that such purchases should not result 
in requiring a retailer to be covered by the rule. However, FinCEN 
recognizes that a retailer that would otherwise be completely exempt 
from the rule because of its lack of significant purchases from persons 
other than dealers or retailers should not have to implement a program 
directed at customer risk merely because it exceeds the $50,000 
threshold in purchases from persons other than dealers and/or other 
retailers. Rather, an appropriate program for such a retailer would be 
limited to guarding against the risks presented by its sources of 
supply other than dealers and other retailers. FinCEN believes that 
this targeted approach presents the right balance between the money 
laundering risks of such businesses and the intent of the statute. 
Therefore, language has been added to section 103.140(b) of the interim 
final rule to provide that, to the extent that a retailer's purchases 
from persons other than dealers subject to the rule and other retailers 
exceeds the $50,000 threshold contained in the retailer exception, the 
anti-money laundering compliance program required of the dealer need 
address only such purchases; such a program would not be required to 
address sales, or other types of purchases.
2. Application of the Rule to Pawnbrokers
    Several commenters requested clarification on whether the rule is

[[Page 33706]]

intended to apply to pawnbrokers. Although pawnbrokers take in covered 
goods from the public in return for funds, they do so in the context of 
extending short-term, non-recourse collateralized loans. Most often, 
such loans are repaid and the collateral is returned to the borrower. 
However, if the borrower fails to repay the loan, the pawnbroker 
forecloses on the collateral, subsequently selling the collateral to 
the general public. FinCEN has determined not to treat this type of 
transaction as the purchase and sale of covered goods for purposes of 
this rule.
    Pawnbrokers are defined as financial institutions for BSA purposes 
(see 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(O)), and are therefore subject to the 
statutory requirement to implement an anti-money laundering program 
requirement. As noted above, FinCEN deferred the anti-money laundering 
program requirement contained in 31 U.S.C. 5318(h) that would have 
applied to many entities that are financial institutions in 31 U.S.C. 
5312, including pawnbrokers. FinCEN intends to address at a later time 
the applicability of the anti-money laundering program requirements of 
31 U.S.C. 5318(h) to pawnbrokers, but at this time, such a requirement 
for pawnbrokers remains deferred. For this reason, the interim final 
rule contains an explicit exception, found at new section 
103.140(a)(2)(ii)(B), providing that the term dealer does not include a 
person licensed or authorized under the laws of any State (or local 
government) to do business as a pawnbroker, but only to the extent such 
person is engaged in pawn transactions, including the sale of pawn loan 
collateral.
3. Trade-in Transactions
    As explained above, section 103.140(a)(1)(ii)(A) of the NPRM 
provided an exception from the anti-money laundering program 
requirement for retailers that do not purchase from persons other than 
dealers more than $50,000 in jewels, precious metals, precious stones, 
or jewelry during the prior year. Commenters indicated that many 
retailers, rather than purchasing jewels, precious metals, precious 
stones, or jewelry containing such items from retail customers for cash 
or cash equivalents, often accept such an item from the customer, a 
``trade-in,'' and credit the value of the trade-in toward a new 
purchase by the customer at the retailer. Several commenters asserted 
that a trade-in transaction should not be deemed a ``purchase'' for 
purposes of the retailer exception because the money laundering risks 
involved in trade-in transactions are low. According to commenters, the 
average value of a trade-in is under $1,000. Many retailers limit the 
use of trade-ins to transactions in which the price of the item to be 
purchased is at least twice the value of the trade-in item, and do not 
permit a customer to obtain cash or cash equivalents in the course of a 
trade-in transaction. Moreover, some retailers will only accept a 
trade-in that was originally purchased from the retailer itself. Even 
if trade-ins were to be considered a ``purchase'' in the context of the 
retailer exception, commenters argued that certain types of trade-ins, 
for example trade-ins of low value (under $10,000), or trade-ins of 
jewelry worth 50 percent or less of the total purchase, should be 
exempted. According to commenters, if the rule were to treat all trade-
in transactions as purchases, a large percentage of retailers would be 
unable to take advantage of the retailer exception.
    In response to comments, and in order to balance the risks posed by 
trade-in transactions against the burdens imposed by the requirement to 
implement an anti-money laundering program, the interim final rule has 
been revised to specifically exempt certain trade-in transactions for 
purposes of the definition of ``dealer,'' including the retailer 
exception that appears in that definition. New section 
103.140(a)(2)(iii) provides that for purposes of meeting the definition 
of a ``dealer,'' the ``purchase'' and ``sale'' of covered goods does 
not include retail transactions in which a dealer or retailer accepts 
from a customer covered goods, the value of which the dealer or 
retailer credits to the account of the customer, or to another purchase 
by the customer, and the retailer or dealer does not provide funds to 
the customer in exchange for such covered goods (the ``trade-in 
exception''). As a result of this exception, a person is not required 
to count a trade-in transaction toward the $50,000 threshold for the 
purchase and sale of covered goods for purposes of determining that 
person's status as a dealer under the rule.\10\ It should be noted that 
the trade-in exception is only an exception from the ``dealer'' 
definition, and not an exception to the scope of the anti-money 
laundering program required of a person other than a retailer who 
otherwise meets the definition of ``dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similarly, a person is not required to count a trade-in 
transaction toward the $50,000 threshold for the purchase of covered 
goods from persons other than dealers and other retailers, for 
purposes of excluding a ``retailer'' from the ``dealer'' definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. 103.140(a)--Definitions 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FinCEN notes that these definitions apply only with respect 
to the interim final rule and not with respect to any other law or 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(1)--Definition of ``Covered Goods''
    Section 103.140(a) continues to define the key terms used in the 
rule. Section 103.140(a)(1) contains a new defined term, ``covered 
goods,'' which includes jewels, precious metals, and precious stones 
(as each is defined in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively, of 
subsection (a)), and finished goods that derive 50 percent or more of 
their value from jewels, precious metals, and precious stones contained 
in or attached to such finished goods. Such finished goods include, but 
are not limited to, jewelry, numismatic items, and antiques. The new 
defined term was added to replace the undefined term ``jewelry'' that 
was used in the NPRM and to clarify and broaden the scope of an 
exception in the NPRM for transactions in jewels, precious metals, and 
precious stones for purposes of fabricating finished goods, to the 
extent that the finished goods contain ``minor amounts of,'' or the 
value of the goods is ``not significantly attributable to,'' jewels, 
precious metals, or precious stones.\12\ Commenters suggested that the 
rule provide more specificity on what is meant by the phrases ``minor 
amounts'' and ``not significantly attributable to.'' One commenter 
suggested that the exception apply to the extent that finished goods 
contain gems, precious metals, or precious stones worth not more than 
10 percent of the product value, and two commenters suggested using a 
threshold of 50 percent of the product value. FinCEN believes that 50 
percent constitutes a threshold that is consistent with the rule's 
definition of ``precious metal,'' which adopts a minimum purity level 
of at least 500 parts per 1000. Thus, the defined term ``covered 
goods'' adopts the 50 percent threshold for determining whether 
finished goods containing jewels, precious metals, or precious stones 
are products subject to the interim final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also the discussion in the following part of the 
preamble regarding a new exception in section 103.140(a)(2)(iii)(B) 
of the interim final rule for purchases and sales of jewels, 
precious metals, and precious stones used in industrial products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(2)--Definition of ``Dealer''
    Section 103.140(a)(2)(i) defines ``dealer'' as any person who is 
engaged ``as a business in the purchase and sale of covered goods'' in 
excess of the dollar

[[Page 33707]]

thresholds. This language differs slightly from the language contained 
in the NPRM, which had defined a dealer as a person engaged ``in the 
business of purchasing and selling'' jewels, precious metals, precious 
stones, or jewelry composed of jewels, precious metals, or precious 
stones. The change was made for purposes of consistency of terms and, 
except for the use of the new term ``covered goods,'' is not a 
substantive change. The terms ``purchase'' and ``sale'' are used 
throughout the rule, and as discussed below, new sections have been 
added to the rule excepting certain transactions from the meaning of 
``purchase'' or ``sale.''
    The rule applies only to persons that both purchase items that meet 
the definition of covered goods, and sell items that meet the same 
definition, in sufficient quantity to meet the $50,000 definitional 
thresholds. Therefore, a person that engages only in the sale of such 
products, for example a mining company that only sells precious metals 
that it mines, would not be covered by the definition. Similarly, a 
person who only engages in the purchase of such products, for example a 
person who purchases gold coins for gifts to family members, would not 
be covered by the rule.\13\ Additionally, a manufacturer of jewelry 
that in one year purchases over $50,000 worth of gold of sufficient 
purity (for example, 14 carat gold) to meet the definition of 
``precious metal,'' but that does not sell jewelry composed of gold of 
sufficient purity (for example, 10 carat gold after manufacturing) to 
be deemed ``covered goods,'' would not be a dealer for purposes of this 
rule. Finally, the rule would not generally apply to persons who merely 
facilitate the purchase and sale of covered goods. For example, persons 
who facilitate estate sales or conduct auctions, bankruptcy trustees, 
school districts that sponsor class ring sales, and persons who host 
in-home sales of a company's jewelry would not be ``dealers'' for 
purposes of the rule based on such activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In contrast, a person who buys and sells coins containing 
metals of a sufficient purity to meet the definition of ``precious 
metal'' would be treated as a dealer for purposes of this rule 
assuming the $50,000 purchase and sale thresholds were met and the 
person is not a retailer as defined in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interim final rule contains language clarifying that the anti-
money laundering program requirement applies only to a person engaged 
within the United States as a business in the purchase and sale of 
covered goods. This would include, for example, a person with a U.S. 
office, a person who comes to the United States to make purchases and 
sales of covered goods above the threshold amount at U.S. trade shows, 
and a foreign-located person who maintains sales staff engaged in such 
purchases and sales within the United States. However, it would not 
include, for example, a foreign dealer who ships products into the 
United States without conducting further business activity within the 
United States, or a foreign dealer that merely advertises in the United 
States or attends a trade-show in the United States at which it does 
not purchase and sell covered goods above the threshold amounts. This 
is consistent with the general applicability of BSA regulatory 
requirements to U.S. persons.\14\ It should be noted that, under 
FinCEN's regulations, the status of a person's corporate parent, 
subsidiary, or affiliate does not affect the determination whether the 
person is itself a financial institution for BSA purposes. Thus, a 
person that does not engage in the business of dealing in covered goods 
would not be deemed a dealer solely by virtue of the fact that it is 
the parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of a dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., the definition of financial institution in 31 
CFR 103.11(n), which includes ``each agent, agency, branch or office 
within the United States of any person doing business, whether or 
not on a regular basis or as an organized business concern. * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interim final rule retains the minimum dollar threshold that 
was proposed in the NPRM, but has been modified to apply the threshold 
to both purchases and sales. Thus, sections 103.140(a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) 
provide that a person is a ``dealer'' only if, during the prior 
calendar or tax year, the person both (1) purchased more than $50,000 
in covered goods, and (2) received more than $50,000 in gross proceeds 
from the sale of covered goods.\15\ This change reflects FinCEN's 
determination that a person that does not reach the $50,000 threshold 
for both purchases and sales is not of sufficient size or risk to be 
required to implement an anti-money laundering program. A few 
commenters suggested that, instead of a yearly dollar volume threshold, 
the rule should contain a threshold based on a single transaction 
amount. These commenters argued in favor of a $10,000 transaction 
level, in light of the requirement that dealers, as non-financial 
trades or businesses, must report transactions involving currency in 
excess of $10,000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6050I and 31 CFR 103.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The reference to ``calendar or tax year'' is intended to 
provide flexibility for dealers in determining whether they have 
reached the $50,000 thresholds. In the case of a dealer whose tax 
year is not the calendar year, this language is intended to avoid 
causing such dealer to keep two sets of records in order to 
determine if the threshold has been met. However, a dealer must 
continue to use whatever basis it initially chooses for determining 
whether it has reached the $50,000 thresholds, whether calendar year 
or tax year, unless it experiences a change in its taxable year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This suggestion is not adopted in the interim final rule because it 
is not consistent with the risk-based approach that is taken in the 
rule. Imposition of a high-dollar transaction threshold would exempt 
dealers that conduct large volumes of business on an annual basis, even 
dealers engaging in numerous transactions at the $5,000 to $10,000 
level, while covering a dealer that conducts a far lower annual volume 
of business that engages in as little as one transaction over $10,000. 
Although ensuring compliance with the currency reporting requirement 
found at 31 CFR 103.30 is an important part of a dealer's anti-money 
laundering program, the requirement to implement an anti-money 
laundering program is intended to accomplish the broader purpose of 
requiring a dealer to assess money laundering risks posed by its 
business model, and to take reasonable steps to lessen such risks. For 
these reasons, FinCEN believes that the $50,000 annual volume threshold 
for both sales and purchases best ensures that those dealers whose 
businesses pose the most significant risk of abuse for money laundering 
and terrorist financing (whether through transaction size or volume) 
are covered by the rule.
    The NPRM contained two exceptions from the definition of dealer. 
The first exception applied to retailers, other than retailers that 
during the prior calendar or tax year, purchased more than $50,000 in 
jewels, precious metals, precious stones, or jewelry from persons other 
than dealers. The second exception applied to a person who engages in 
transactions in jewels, precious metals, or precious stones for 
purposes of fabricating finished goods that contain minor amounts of, 
or the value of which is not significantly attributable to, such 
precious metals, precious stones, or jewels. The substance of these 
exceptions has been retained in the interim final rule, but the 
exceptions have been re-structured and additional exceptions have been 
added. The interim final rule contains four exceptions, two relating to 
the definition of ``dealer,'' and two relating to the meaning of the 
terms ``purchase'' and ``sale.''
    Section 103.140(a)(2)(ii) provides two exceptions from the 
definition of ``dealer.'' As described in Part III.B.1, above, the 
first exception provides that a retailer is a dealer only if it 
purchased more than $50,000 in covered goods from persons other than 
dealers or other retailers (e.g., from the general public or

[[Page 33708]]

from foreign persons not subject to the interim final rule) during the 
prior calendar or tax year. A retailer that is a dealer pursuant to 
this provision, however, would only have to address in its anti-money 
laundering program purchases from persons other than dealers and other 
retailers. As discussed further below, the definition of ``retailer'' 
has been taken out of the exception itself, and a separate definition 
of ``retailer'' has been added to the interim final rule.
    The second exception from the definition of ``dealer,'' found at 
section 103.140(a)(2)(ii)(B) has been added to the rule to clarify that 
a person licensed or authorized under the laws of any State (or local 
government) to do business as a pawnbroker is not a dealer for purposes 
of the rule with respect to pawn transactions, including the sale of 
pawn loan collateral.
    As discussed in part III.B.3. above, section 103.140(a)(2)(iii) 
provides an exception from the meaning of the terms ``purchase'' and 
``sale'' as used in section 103.140(a)(2)(i) of the interim final rule 
for trade-in transactions.
    Section 103.140(a)(2)(iv) provides an exception from the 
definitions of ``purchase'' and ``sale'' for purposes of both the 
definition of ``dealer'' in section 103.140(a)(2)(i) and the anti-money 
laundering program requirement in section 103.140(b), for transactions 
relating to industrial equipment containing covered goods. As discussed 
in Part IV.A.1. above, section 103.140(a)(1)(ii)(B) of the NPRM 
provided that a person engaged in transactions in jewels, precious 
metals, or precious stones for purposes of fabricating finished goods 
containing minor amounts of, or the value of which is not significantly 
attributable to, the precious metals, precious stones, or jewels, was 
not a ``dealer.'' The exception was intended to exempt the purchase and 
sale of precious metals, precious stones, or jewels in the context of 
buying, selling, and fabricating finished goods, including industrial 
products, that contain small amounts of jewels, precious metals, or 
precious stones, in order to ensure that the anti-money laundering 
program requirement is imposed on those sectors of the industry that 
pose the most significant risk of money laundering and terrorist 
financing.
    FinCEN has concluded that the purchase of jewels, precious metals, 
and precious stones for use in industrial products, and the purchase or 
sale of such products, appears to be less susceptible to money 
laundering and terrorist financing risks, due to the fact that precious 
metals, precious stones, and jewels typically do not constitute a 
significant component of the value of an industrial product. 
Accordingly, the interim final rule contains a new exception from the 
terms ``purchase'' and ``sale'' (section 103.140(a)(2)(iv)) for the 
purchase of precious metals, precious stones, or jewels that are 
incorporated into machinery or equipment used for industrial purposes, 
and the purchase or sale of such machinery or equipment.
    Commenters requested clarification as to whether ``toll-refining'' 
constitutes the purchase and sale of precious metals for purposes of 
the definition. As described by commenters, toll-refining is a 
transaction in which a company that uses precious metal in a process 
that results in scrap metal sends the scrap metal to a refiner that, 
for a fee, extracts the precious metal from the scrap and returns the 
precious metal to the company.
    Commenters argued that because this type of transaction is not the 
exchange of metal for cash or other monetary consideration, but rather 
the payment of a fee in exchange for the performance of the process of 
extracting precious metal from scrap metal, it should not be deemed the 
purchase and sale'' of precious metals. FinCEN agrees. Although we 
believe it is unnecessary for the interim final rule to include a 
specific exemption for toll-refining, we clarify that toll-refining, as 
described above, does not constitute a purchase or sale of precious 
metals for purposes of this interim final rule.
    Finally, a few commenters requested exemptive or other relief for 
specific types of businesses that fall within the definition of dealer, 
arguing that these businesses pose a low risk of money laundering and 
terrorist financing. Although it is not appropriate to resolve such 
fact-specific individualized situations in the context of a general 
rulemaking, persons wishing to obtain an administrative ruling relating 
to their specific situation may submit a request pursuant to 31 CFR 
103.81. In addition, FinCEN has the authority to make exceptions to, or 
grant exemptions from, the requirements of 31 CFR part 103 pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(6) and 31 CFR 103.55.
    Section 103.140(a)(2)(v) provides that, for purposes of applying 
the $50,000 definitional thresholds contained in the rule to the 
purchase and sale of finished goods, only the value of the jewels, 
precious metals, or precious stones contained in, or attached to, such 
goods must be taken into account.
3. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(3)--Definition of ``Jewel''
    Section 103.140(a)(3) defines the term ``jewel'' to include organic 
substances that have a market-recognized gem level of quality, beauty, 
and rarity. FinCEN did not receive comments on the definition of 
``jewel'' contained in the NPRM, and has retained the definition in the 
interim final rule.
4. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(4)--Definition of ``Precious Metal''
    Section 103.140 (a)(4) defines ``precious metal'' to include gold, 
silver, and the platinum group of metals, at a level of purity of 500 
parts per 1000 (50 percent) or greater, singly or in any combination. 
The definition is unchanged from the NPRM. Although one commenter 
suggested that the purity threshold should be lowered so that the rule 
would apply to dealers in 10 carat gold, another commented favorably on 
the purity threshold because it provides an approach that is tailored 
to cover higher-risk products. In order to balance the burdens 
associated with the rule against the lower risk of money laundering and 
terrorist financing with products of a lower purity threshold, the 
interim final rule retains the 50 percent purity threshold. However, 
FinCEN will continue to review whether it is appropriate to extend the 
anti-money laundering program to dealers that purchase and sell lower 
grade metals.
5. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(5)--Definition of ``Precious Stone''
    The term ``precious stone'' is defined in section 103.140(a)(5) to 
include substances that have a market-recognized gem level of quality, 
beauty, and rarity. Therefore, precious stones of industrial quality 
are not included in the definition of precious stones. In response to a 
comment, the word ``inorganic'' has been removed from the definition. 
However, this change is not intended to alter the substantive effect of 
the definition. In addition, tanzanite has been added to the list of 
substances that will be treated as precious stones. Because it shares 
the characteristics of market-recognized, gem level quality, beauty, 
and rarity with other minerals in that category, and because of its 
significant market value, tanzanite can be used for money laundering 
and terrorist financing. Therefore, a person engaged as a business in 
the purchase and sale of tanzanite is covered by the anti-money 
laundering program requirement, to the extent that all of the other 
thresholds of the rule are met.

[[Page 33709]]

6. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(6)--Definition of ``Person''
    Section 103.140(a)(6) provides that for purposes of the interim 
final rule, the term ``person'' has the same meaning as provided in 31 
CFR 103.11(z).
7. 31 CFR 103.140(a)(7)--Definition of ``Retailer''
    The retailer exception proposed in section 103.140(a)(1)(ii)(A) of 
the NPRM defined a retailer as ``a person engaged in the business of 
sales to the public of jewels, precious metals, or precious stones, or 
jewelry composed thereof.'' In the interim final rule, a separate 
section containing the definition of ``retailer'' has been created, and 
language has been added to the definition to clarify the scope of the 
definition. New section 103.140(a)(7) provides that a retailer is a 
U.S. person engaged in the business of sales primarily to the public of 
covered goods. The purpose of this revision is to clarify that the 
retailer exception found at section 103.140(a)(1)(ii)(A) of the interim 
final rule applies to those dealers whose sales are made primarily to 
the public, so that the rule does not apply to a dealer whose sales to 
persons other than members of the public constitute a minimal portion 
of the dealer's overall sales. Thus, a dealer whose business is 
primarily with the public would not be disqualified from the retailer 
exception solely because of occasional sales to a dealer or retailer. 
However, a dealer whose business is not primarily with the public, but 
with other persons such as dealers, would not be treated as a retailer 
under the interim final rule.

B. 103.140(b)--Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirement

    Section 103.140(b) of the interim final rule continues to require 
that each dealer develop and implement an anti-money laundering program 
reasonably designed to prevent the dealer from being used to facilitate 
money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities, and 
clarifies that the program is to apply to the dealer's purchases and 
sales of covered goods. The program must be in writing and should set 
forth clearly the details of the program, including the 
responsibilities of the individuals and/or departments involved. In 
addition, a dealer's program must be approved by its senior management. 
A dealer must make its anti-money laundering program available to the 
Treasury or its designee upon request. While it is permissible for a 
dealer to delegate certain functions relating to its anti-money 
laundering program to a third party, the dealer remains responsible for 
ensuring compliance with these requirements. To the extent that a 
retailer's purchases from persons other than dealers and other 
retailers exceeds the $50,000 threshold contained in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii)(A), the anti-money laundering compliance program required of 
the retailer need only address such purchases.
    Although ensuring compliance with the requirement to report 
transactions involving currency in excess of $10,000 pursuant to 26 
U.S.C. 6050I and 31 CFR 103.30 should be an element of a dealer's anti-
money laundering program, it should not be the sole focus. Rather, as 
noted above, a dealer's program must be reasonably designed to prevent 
the dealer from being used to facilitate money laundering or the 
financing of terrorist activities. Several commenters expressed concern 
about the standard to which they would be held under the ``reasonably 
designed'' language. These commenters argued that there is little 
information available to dealers to consult when evaluating whether a 
transaction may involve money laundering or terrorist financing, and 
suggested that FinCEN provide specific sources of reference for dealers 
to use when determining whether a particular transaction may 
potentially involve money laundering or the financing of terrorism. 
Dealers able to demonstrate that they have checked these sources of 
information, commenters asserted, should be deemed in compliance with 
the anti-money laundering program requirement. In addition, commenters 
expressed concern that, while money laundering is a concept that can be 
understood in terms of objective criteria, terrorist financing is more 
subjective, making it more difficult for dealers to implement a program 
designed to prevent it. Commenters suggested that FinCEN provide more 
information on the methods by which people attempt to finance terrorism 
through transactions with dealers. Finally, some commenters suggested 
that FinCEN develop a written program that could be used by dealers.
    The use of the phrase ``reasonably designed'' in paragraph (b) is 
intended to provide dealers with the flexibility to tailor their 
programs to their specific circumstances so long as the minimum 
requirements are met. The interim final rule applies to many different 
types of dealers that engage in purchase and sale transactions 
involving a variety of products and different types of customers and 
sources of supply. Dealers must use the expertise that they possess 
about their industry, their particular business, and their particular 
customers and suppliers to develop a program that meets the 
requirements of the rule. However, FinCEN recognizes the importance of 
providing guidance to assist dealers in assessing the risks related to 
their businesses, and in identifying transactions that may be 
indicative of money laundering or terrorist financing. The examples of 
transactional behavior that may indicate money laundering or terrorist 
financing contained in the text of the rule, as well as the information 
about recent cases contained in this preamble, are intended to be the 
starting point. Going forward, FinCEN is committed to providing dealers 
with additional guidance, including analysis of relevant trends and 
patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing, whenever 
possible.
    The interim final rule requires that each dealer develop and 
implement a program reasonably designed to prevent money laundering. 
Accordingly, when evaluating a dealer's compliance with the 
requirements of this rule, the focus will be on the design and 
implementation of the program. The Treasury and FinCEN recognize that 
even the best of anti-money laundering programs cannot guarantee that a 
dealer will not be used by a money launderer.
    Finally, in response to comments, FinCEN wishes to clarify that a 
dealer's anti-money laundering program need not be made available for 
inspection at each of the dealer's locations. It is sufficient that a 
dealer maintain a copy of its written program at one location within 
the United States, for example the dealer's headquarters or the 
location of the person designated as the dealer's compliance officer.

C. 103.140(c)--Minimum Requirements

    Section 103.140(c) continues to set forth the minimum requirements 
of a dealer's anti-money laundering program.
1. 31 CFR 103.41(c)(1)--Policies, Procedures and Internal Controls
    Section 103.140(c)(1) provides that a dealer's anti-money 
laundering program must incorporate policies, procedures, and internal 
controls based upon the dealer's assessment of the money laundering and 
terrorist financing risks associated with its line(s) of business. 
Policies, procedures, and internal controls must also include 
provisions for complying with applicable BSA requirements. Thus, a 
dealer's program must address its obligation to report on Form 8300 the 
receipt of cash or certain non-cash instruments totaling more than 
$10,000 in one transaction or in two or more related transactions. If 
dealers

[[Page 33710]]

become subject to additional BSA requirements, their anti-money 
laundering programs will need to be updated accordingly.
    Section 103.140(c)(1)(i) provides that, for purposes of making the 
risk assessment required under section 103.140(c)(1), a dealer must 
consider all relevant factors, including the specific factors contained 
in the rule. The specific risk factors listed in the rule require a 
dealer to (1) assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risks 
associated with its products, customers, suppliers, distribution 
channels, and geographic locations, (2) take into consideration the 
extent to which the dealer engages in transactions other than with 
established customers, or sources of supply, or other dealers subject 
to this rule, and (3) analyze the extent to which it engages in 
transactions for which payment or account reconciliation is routed to 
or from accounts located in jurisdictions that have been identified as 
vulnerable to terrorism or money laundering.\16\ The rule is intended 
to give a dealer the flexibility to design its program to meet the 
specific money laundering and terrorist financing risks presented by 
the dealer's business, based on the dealer's assessment of those risks. 
Language has been added to the second risk assessment factor to require 
dealers to take into account the potential risks involved in engaging 
in transactions with persons who are not subject to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Examples of designations to this effect include the 
Department of State's designation of a jurisdiction as a sponsor of 
international terrorism under 22 U.S.C. 2371 (see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/), the FATF's designation of 
jurisdictions that are non-cooperative with international anti-money 
laundering principles (see http://www.fatf-gafi.org/NCCT_en.htm), 
or the Secretary of the Treasury's designation, pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 5318A of jurisdictions warranting special measures due to 
money laundering concerns (http://www.fincen.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 103.140(c)(1)(ii) provides that a dealer's policies, 
procedures, and internal controls must be reasonably designed to detect 
transactions that may involve use of the dealer to facilitate money 
laundering or terrorist financing. In addition, a dealer's program must 
incorporate procedures for making reasonable inquiries to determine 
whether a transaction may involve money laundering or terrorist 
financing. A dealer that identifies indicators that a transaction may 
involve money laundering or terrorist financing should take reasonable 
steps to determine whether its suspicions are justified and respond 
accordingly, including refusing to enter into, or complete, a 
transaction that appears designed to further illegal activity.\17\ The 
interim final rule continues to list several examples of factors that 
may indicate that a transaction is designed to involve use of the 
dealer to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 make it a crime for any person, 
including an individual or company, to engage knowingly in a 
financial transaction with the proceeds from any of a long list of 
crimes or types of ``specific unlawful activity.'' Although the 
standard of knowledge required is ``actual knowledge,'' actual 
knowledge includes ``willful blindness.'' Thus, a person could be 
deemed to have knowledge that proceeds were derived from illegal 
activity if he or she demonstrated ``willful blindness'' to ``red 
flags'' that indicated illegality. See, e.g., U.S. v. Finkelstein, 
229 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir. 2000) (owner of jewelry/precious metals 
business convicted for participation in money laundering scheme; 
sentence enhancement based on willful blindness regarding receipt of 
funds derived from narcotics trafficking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule provides flexibility to dealers in developing procedures 
for making reasonable inquiries under section 103.140(c)(1)(ii). For 
example, a dealer may appropriately determine that reasonable inquiry 
with respect to a transaction conducted by a new customer or supplier 
involves considerable scrutiny, including verification of customer 
identity, or the purpose of a transaction. In contrast, reasonable 
inquiry with respect to an established customer may not involve 
additional steps beyond those normally required to complete the 
transaction, unless the transaction appears suspicious or unusual to 
the dealer. As explained further below, the determination whether to 
refuse to enter into, or to terminate, a transaction lies with the 
dealer. In addition, dealers are encouraged to adopt procedures for 
voluntarily filing Suspicious Activity Reports with FinCEN and for 
reporting suspected terrorist activities to FinCEN using its Financial 
Institutions Hotline (1-866-556-3974).
    FinCEN has not at this time proposed a suspicious activity 
reporting rule for dealers. However, given the importance of ensuring 
that information relevant to the use of covered products for financial 
crime or the financing of terrorism is provided to law enforcement, we 
are considering proposing a suspicious activity reporting rule in the 
future. We will work closely with law enforcement and the industry as 
we consider whether such a rule is appropriate.
    The list of factors contained in the rule is intended to provide 
examples of what may indicate illegal activity, and is by no means 
exhaustive. Determinations as to whether a transaction should be 
refused or terminated must be based on the facts and circumstances 
relating to the transaction and the dealer's knowledge of the customer 
or supplier in question. It is not intended that dealers automatically 
refuse to engage in or terminate transactions simply because such 
transactions involve one or more of the factors listed in the rule. 
Rather, it is intended that dealers will develop procedures for 
identifying transactions involving potentially illegal activity, and 
procedures setting forth the actions that a dealer will take in 
response to such transactions.
    The factors in the interim final rule are identical to those 
contained in the proposed rule, with one exception. One commenter 
suggested that the factor contained in section 103.140(c)(1)(ii)(C), 
relating to an attempt by a customer to maintain a high degree of 
secrecy with respect to a transaction, should be eliminated because in 
an industry with security concerns stemming from the high dollar value 
of jewels, precious metals, and precious stones, transactions are 
typically characterized by secrecy. FinCEN wishes to clarify that this 
factor is not intended to apply to the level of concern for personal 
security or the security of valuable merchandise that is customary in 
the normal course of business for this industry. Rather, it is intended 
to apply to transactions in which a customer attempts to maintain a 
level of secrecy that is unusual in light of the level of secrecy that 
is normal and customary for the industry, or the business of the 
particular dealer, or the type of transaction. In response to this 
comment, section 103.140(c)(1)(ii)(C) has been revised to apply to 
attempts by a customer or supplier to maintain ``an unusual degree of 
secrecy'' with respect to the transaction.
2. 31 CFR 103.41(c)(2)--Compliance Officer
    Section 103.140(c)(2) continues to require that a dealer designate 
a compliance officer to be responsible for administering the anti-money 
laundering program. The person (or group of persons) should be 
competent and knowledgeable regarding BSA requirements and money 
laundering issues and risks, and should be empowered with full 
responsibility and authority to develop and enforce appropriate 
policies and procedures throughout the dealer's business. The role of 
the compliance officer is to ensure that (1) the program is being 
implemented effectively, (2) the program is updated as necessary, and 
(3) appropriate persons are trained in accordance with the rule. The 
compliance officer also provides an available resource for employees 
with questions regarding BSA requirements.

[[Page 33711]]

Whether the compliance officer is dedicated full time to BSA compliance 
would depend upon the size and complexity of the dealer's business and 
the risks posed. In all cases, the person responsible for the 
supervision of the overall program must be an officer or employee of 
the dealer.
3. 31 CFR 103.41(c)(3)--Education and Training
    Section 103.140(c)(3) continues to require that a dealer provide 
for training of appropriate persons. Employees of the dealer must be 
trained in BSA requirements relevant to their functions, including 
recognizing possible signs of money laundering and terrorist financing. 
The level, frequency, and focus of the training should be determined by 
the responsibilities of the employees, and any factors the dealer has 
identified in its risk assessment.\18\ Employees should receive 
periodic updates and refreshers regarding the anti-money laundering 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Appropriate topics for an anti-money laundering program 
include, but are not limited to: BSA requirements, a description of 
money laundering, how money laundering is carried out, what types of 
activities and transactions should raise concerns, what steps should 
be followed when suspicions arise, and the need to review OFAC and 
other government lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 31 CFR 103.41(c)(4)--Independent Testing
    Section 103.140(c)(4) continues to require that a dealer conduct 
periodic testing of its program, to ensure that the program is 
functioning as designed. Such testing should be accomplished by 
personnel knowledgeable regarding BSA requirements. The frequency of 
such a review will vary by dealer, depending upon factors such as the 
size and complexity of the dealer, the nature of its business, and any 
relevant factors identified by the dealer in the course of conducting 
its risk assessment.
    Testing may be accomplished either by dealer employees or 
unaffiliated service providers so long as those same individuals are 
not involved in the operation or oversight of the program. One 
commenter expressed concern that the independent testing requirement 
would place an unfair burden on smaller businesses, requiring them to 
bear the cost of hiring an outside auditor because their entire staff 
would be directly involved in the operation or oversight of the 
program. Under the terms of the rule, however, the required independent 
review may be performed by an employee of the dealer (or a co-owner), 
so long as the reviewer is not the designated compliance officer or 
involved in the operation of the program.

D. 103.41(d)--Effective Date

    The NPRM proposed that a dealer must develop and implement an anti-
money laundering program within 90 days after publication of the 
interim final rule, or not later than 90 days after the date a person 
becomes a dealer for purposes of the rule. Several commenters requested 
an extension of the effective date to at least 180 days after issuance 
of the final rule. In view of the diversity of the businesses that 
constitute dealers in covered goods, coupled with the fact that dealers 
are not currently regulated as financial institutions, FinCEN agrees 
that a longer delayed applicability date is warranted. The interim 
final rule (section 103.140(d)) provides that the a dealer is required 
to develop and implement an anti-money laundering program not later 
than January 1, 2006, or six months after the date a dealer becomes 
subject to the provisions of the interim final rule.

V. Frequently Asked Questions

    FinCEN is providing the following questions and answers to assist 
dealers in precious metals, precious stones, and jewels in 
understanding the scope of this interim final rule.
    1. Why is FinCEN issuing a regulation requiring dealers in precious 
metals, stones, and jewels to establish an anti-money laundering 
program?
    As with all of FinCEN's regulations requiring the establishment of 
an anti-money laundering program, FinCEN is issuing this regulation to 
better protect those who deal in jewels, precious metals, and precious 
stones from potential abuse by criminals and terrorists, thereby 
enhancing the protection of the U.S. financial system generally, and 
the precious metals, jewels and precious stones industry in particular. 
The characteristics of jewels, precious metals, and precious stones 
that make them valuable also make them potentially vulnerable to those 
seeking to launder money. This regulation is a key step in ensuring 
that the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) is applied appropriately to these 
businesses.
    Recognizing the need for a more comprehensive anti-money laundering 
regime, Congress passed, and the President signed into the law, the USA 
Patriot Act, which, among other things, requires that all persons 
defined as financial institutions for BSA purposes establish anti-money 
laundering programs. The Act further directs the Secretary of the 
Treasury to prescribe through regulation minimum standards for such 
programs. A dealer in jewels, precious metals, or precious stones is 
defined as a ``financial institution'' under the BSA, and this 
regulation fulfills that mandate of the USA Patriot Act.
    2. Why is this being issued as an ``Interim Final'' rule? Will it 
change?
    FinCEN is issuing this rule as an interim final rule to give us the 
flexibility to more narrowly tailor certain aspects of the rule in 
response to our request within this rule for additional public comment 
on four discrete issues, while still ensuring that dealers immediately 
begin to develop anti-money laundering programs.
    Through the course of the rulemaking process and in developing a 
final rule, FinCEN has identified several important issues that would 
affect the scope of the regulation but on which it received little or 
no public comment. Thus, to ensure an effective and appropriately 
focused regulation, FinCEN seeks public comment regarding the following 
issues (which are discussed more fully under the heading ``Request for 
Comments''):
    (1) Should silver be removed from the definition of a ``precious 
metal?''
    (2) Should ``precious stones'' and ``jewels'' be defined more 
specifically, for example, by reference to a minimum price per carat, 
and if so, how?
    (3) Is 50 percent the appropriate value threshold for determining 
whether finished goods (including jewelry) containing jewels, precious 
metals, or precious stones should be subject to the rule?
    (4) In addition, FinCEN is again requesting comments on the 
potential impact of the rule on small businesses (including 
manufacturers, dealers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers) that 
may be ``dealers'' subject to the provisions of the rule.
    FinCEN is soliciting comments until July 25, 2005. After the end of 
the comment period, FinCEN will review all comments received and 
determine whether any further changes should be made in the final rule. 
At this time, FinCEN will only consider comments addressing the issues 
outlined above, and FinCEN anticipates that changes, if any, will be 
made before January 1, 2006, the date that dealers are required to 
implement their anti-money laundering programs.
    Dealers covered by the interim final rule are expected to begin 
developing anti-money laundering programs in accordance with the terms 
of this interim final rule. Any changes that FinCEN makes to the rule 
would likely reduce compliance burdens on dealers.
    3. Who is covered by this regulation?

[[Page 33712]]

    The interim final rule applies to ``dealers'' in ``covered goods.'' 
``Covered goods'' include jewels, precious metals, and precious stones, 
and finished goods (including but not limited to, jewelry, numismatic 
items, and antiques) that derive 50 percent or more of their value from 
jewels, precious metals, or precious stones contained in or attached to 
such finished goods.
    FinCEN has defined the term ``dealer'' as it is commonly 
understood: A person who both purchases and sells covered goods. 
Additionally, FinCEN has included dollar thresholds in the definition 
of dealer: A person must have purchased at least $50,000, and sold at 
least $50,000, worth of covered goods during the preceding year. The 
dollar threshold is intended to ensure that the rule only applies to 
persons engaged in the business of buying and selling a significant 
amount of these items, rather than to small businesses, occasional 
``dealers,'' and persons dealing in such items for hobby purposes.
    Significantly, the interim rule distinguishes between a dealer and 
``retailer'' of covered goods. FinCEN has defined the term retailer as 
a person engaged within the U.S. in sales of covered goods, primarily 
to the public. FinCEN believes that retailers, as defined, do not pose 
the same level of risk for money laundering as do dealers. Thus, most 
retailers will not be required to establish anti-money laundering 
programs.
    So long as retailers generally purchase their covered goods from 
U.S.-based dealers and other retailers, the retailers will not be 
required to establish anti-money laundering programs. Thus, retailers 
that, for example, purchase excess inventory from other retailers from 
time to time would still be covered by the retailer exemption.
    Under the interim final rule, a retailer that purchases up to 
$50,000 of covered goods from persons other than U.S.-based dealers or 
retailers is covered by the retailer exemption. However, if during the 
prior tax or calendar year a retailer both purchased more than $50,000 
of covered goods from persons other than U.S. dealers or retailers 
(such as non-U.S. dealers and members of the general public), and sold 
more than $50,000 of covered goods, then the retailer would be deemed 
to be a ``dealer'' and would have to develop and implement an anti-
money laundering program. Under such circumstances, the anti-money 
laundering program would only be required to address purchases from 
non-U.S. dealers (including members of the general public) for the 
following year; the program would not be required to address sales.
    Finally, businesses licensed or registered as pawnbrokers under 
State or municipal law are specifically exempted from the definition of 
``dealer'' for purposes of the interim final rule. Thus, a pawnbroker 
is not required to establish an anti-money laundering program under 
this rule as long as the pawnbroker is properly licensed or registered 
with the appropriate State or local government and is engaged in pawn 
transactions.
    3(a) Is the purchase and sale of jewelry and other finished goods 
containing jewels, precious metals, or precious stones subject to the 
rule as well?
    The purchase and sale of jewelry and other finished goods 
containing jewels, precious metals or precious stones would subject a 
person to the rule, only if such jewelry or other finished goods derive 
at least 50 percent of their value from the jewels, precious metals or 
precious stones they contain. The purpose of this distinction is to 
ensure that FinCEN does not regulate a wide variety of goods whose 
value is not primarily derived from the jewels, precious metals or 
precious stones they contain.
    3(b) How do I determine whether I have purchased and sold $50,000 
worth of jewels, precious metals or precious stones?
    The $50,000 threshold is based solely on the value of jewels, 
precious metals, and precious stones that were purchased and sold 
during the prior year. For example, if a business purchases and sells 
jewelry, at least 50 percent of the value of which is derived from 
jewels, precious metals, or precious stones, the $50,000 threshold is 
calculated based on the value of the jewels, precious metals, and 
precious stones contained in such jewelry, not on the overall value of 
the jewelry. This distinction ensures that the focus of the rule 
remains on jewels, precious metals, and precious stones, not on value 
due to other reasons.
    3(c) How do I determine whether the businesses from which I 
purchase my covered goods are ``dealers'' or other ``retailers'' for 
purposes of the interim final rule?
    FinCEN expects persons engaged in the business of buying and 
selling covered goods to take reasonable steps to determine whether a 
supplier is covered by this interim final rule or whether the supplier 
is eligible for the retailer exemption. Reasonable steps will depend on 
the nature of the relationship between the supplier and the person 
purchasing the items. FinCEN understands that the jewel, precious 
metal, and precious stone industry is one often characterized by 
personal relationships. Accordingly, in most cases, FinCEN anticipates 
that the verbal or written representations of the supplier will be 
sufficient. However, in other cases, additional due diligence will be 
required.
    3(d) In 2005, I will purchase more than $50,000 in jewels, precious 
metals, and precious stones that I use to manufacture inexpensive 
jewelry that I sell to retail stores. Will I be required to have an 
anti-money laundering program in 2006?
    If the jewels, precious metals, and precious stones in your jewelry 
account for 50 percent or more of the selling price of the jewelry, and 
the value of the jewels, precious metals and precious stones contained 
in the jewelry you sell exceeds $50,000, you will be required to have 
an anti-money laundering program.
    If only some of your jewelry derives 50 percent or more of its 
selling price (the price at which you sell it to the retail stores, not 
the price that the retail stores will charge their customers) from 
jewels, precious metals, or precious stones, you only need to count the 
value of the jewels, precious metals, or precious stones in that 
jewelry towards your $50,000 ``sales'' threshold.
    The focus of this rule is on the jewels, precious metals, and 
precious stones--not on the jewelry or other finished items. Therefore, 
only jewelry (and other finished goods) that derive at least 50 percent 
of their value from the jewels, precious metals, and precious stones 
are subject to this rule.
    The anti-money laundering program should focus on realistic money-
laundering risks, based on the experience of the industry and 
government. FinCEN believes that these thresholds help to better focus 
the rule on those risks, and will be periodically issuing information 
to the industry regarding its knowledge and experience with money 
laundering risks to this industry.
    3(e) I sell precious stones primarily to the public, but my 
supplier is a foreign company. Am I required to establish an anti-money 
laundering program?
    If, during 2005, you purchase more than $50,000 in precious stones 
from your foreign supplier, and sell more than $50,000 in precious 
stones, you must develop and implement an anti-money laundering program 
by January 1, 2006. But, because you are a retailer, your anti-money 
laundering program would only need to address the money laundering 
risks associated with the purchases from your foreign supplier.

[[Page 33713]]

    3(f) Are trade-in transactions ``purchases'' under this rule?
    Not for the purpose of defining who is a dealer subject to the 
rule.\19\ FinCEN has learned that it is quite common for dealers and 
retailers in covered goods to allow retail customers to trade-in 
existing items for credit against the purchase of a new item. 
Therefore, so long as the value of the trade-in is credited to the 
account of the customer, and so long as a dealer or a retailer does not 
provide funds to the customer in exchange for the trade-in, these 
transactions need not be taken into account in determining the dollar 
value of covered goods purchased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Trade-in transactions also are not considered ``purchases'' 
for purposes of determining whether a retailer qualifies for the 
retailer exception to the definition of ``dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trade-in exception only applies for purposes of determining who 
is a ``dealer,'' and not to the scope of the anti-money laundering 
program required of a dealer. Therefore, a dealer that is not a 
retailer would be required to evaluate the risks posed by trade-in 
transactions in determining the appropriate program requirements, as it 
would with other transactions in covered goods.
    3(g) I am a retail jeweler who sometimes buys jewelry from the 
general public, which I re-sell in my store. Am I required to have an 
anti-money laundering program?
    You would be required to establish an anti-money laundering program 
only if, during the prior calendar or tax year:
    (1) You sold jewelry containing more than $50,000 in jewels, 
precious metals, and precious stones, and the value of the jewels, 
precious metals, and precious stones comprised 50 percent or more of 
the selling price of the jewelry; and
    (2) You purchased from the general public jewelry containing more 
than $50,000 in jewels, precious metals, and precious stones, and the 
value of the jewels, precious metals, and precious stones comprised 50 
percent or more of the purchase price of the jewelry.
    If you are required to have an anti-money laundering program, it 
would only need to address the risks associated with purchases from the 
public of jewelry that derives 50 percent or more of its value from 
jewels, precious stones, or precious metals. It would not need to 
address your sale of covered goods.
    3(h) I purchase jewels, precious stones, and precious metals for 
the purpose of making and selling decorative consumer goods. Do I have 
to establish an anti-money laundering program?
    If you sell your goods primarily to the public, you are a retailer 
and do not have to establish an anti-money laundering program, unless 
during the prior tax or calendar year:
    (1) The value of the jewels, precious stones and precious metals 
contained in the goods you sold was more than $50,000, and the value of 
the jewels, precious stones, and precious metals comprised 50 percent 
or more of the selling price of those goods; and
    (2) You purchased more than $50,000 in jewels, precious stones, and 
precious metals from either foreign sources or the general public, in 
which case your program need address only those sources of supply.
    If you are not a retailer, you must establish an anti-money 
laundering program if, during the prior tax or calendar year:
    (1) You purchased more than $50,000 in jewels, precious stones, and 
precious metals from any source of supply; and
    (2) The value of the jewels, precious stones and precious metals 
contained in the goods you sold was more than $50,000, and the value of 
the jewels, precious stones, and precious metals comprised 50 percent 
or more of the selling price of those goods.
    3(i) I am an antiques dealer who purchases and sells items that 
contain jewels, precious metals or precious stones. Am I required to 
have an anti-money laundering program?
    If you sell your antiques primarily to the public, you are a 
retailer and do not have to establish an anti-money laundering program, 
unless during 2005:
    (1) The value of the jewels, precious stones and precious metals 
contained in the antiques you sold was more than $50,000, and the value 
of the jewels, precious stones, and precious metals comprised 50 
percent or more of the selling price of those antiques; and
    (2) You purchased antiques from foreign sources or the general 
public that contained more than $50,000 in jewels, precious stones, and 
precious metals, and the value of the jewels, precious stones, and 
precious metals comprised 50 percent or more of the purchase price of 
those antiques; in which case your program need address only those 
sources of supply.
    If you are not a retailer because, for example, you sell your 
antiques equally to other antiques dealers as well as the general 
public, you must establish an anti-money laundering program if, during 
2005:
    (1) The value of the jewels, precious stones and precious metals 
contained in the antiques you purchased was more than $50,000, and the 
value of the jewels, precious stones, and precious metals accounted for 
50 percent or more of the purchase price of those antiques; and
    (2) You sold antiques that contained more than $50,000 in jewels, 
precious stones, or precious metals, and the value of the jewels, 
precious stones, and precious metals comprised 50 percent or more of 
the selling price of those antiques.
    In all cases, it is only the value of the jewels, precious metals, 
and precious stones in the antiques that matters, not the value of the 
antiques themselves.
    Because of price ``mark-ups'' it is possible that the precious 
metals in an antique you purchased accounted for more than 50 percent 
of its purchase price, but less than 50 percent of its selling price 
when you sold it. If this is the case, you would need to count the 
purchase toward your $50,000 ``purchases'' threshold, but the sale 
would not count toward your ``sales'' threshold.
    3(j) What about the purchase of jewels, precious stones, or 
precious metals for use in machinery or equipment to be used for 
industrial purposes? If a business manufactures such equipment and 
sells it, is that business subject to this rule?
    No. The purchase of jewels, precious metals, and precious stones 
for use in industrial products, and the purchase or sale of such 
products, appears to be less susceptible to money laundering and 
terrorist financing risks, due to the fact that precious metals, 
precious stones, and jewels typically do not constitute a significant 
component of the value of an industrial product. Therefore, persons who 
engage in these activities are not dealers to the extent of such 
activities for purposes of the interim final rule.
    4(a) What are the requirements for the anti-money laundering 
program?
    At a minimum, dealers must establish an anti-money laundering 
program that comprises the four elements set forth below. FinCEN offers 
the following guidance to assist dealers in the development of their 
program. However, this guidance does not supplant the terms of the 
interim final rule, and the steps required in any one particular case 
will depend on the unique circumstances of each business:
    (1) Policies, procedures, and internal controls, based on the 
dealer's assessment of the money laundering and terrorist financing 
risk associated with its business, that are reasonably designed to 
enable the dealer to comply with the applicable requirements of the 
Bank Secrecy Act and to prevent the dealer from being used for money 
laundering or terrorist financing.

[[Page 33714]]

    You should learn what the BSA requirements are for your business. 
For most dealers, the requirements are (1) to establish an anti-money 
laundering program, (2) to file IRS/FinCEN Form 8300,\20\ (3) to file 
FinCEN Form TD F 90-22.1 \21\, and (4) to file FinCEN Form 105.\22\ All 
of these forms and their instructions are available at http://www.fincen.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Reports relating to currency in excess of $10,000 received 
in a trade or business, see 31 CFR 103.30.
    \21\ Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, see 31 CFR 
103.24.
    \22\ Report of International Transportation of Currency or 
Monetary Instruments, see 31 CFR 103.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the preamble to the rule describes, you should assess the extent 
to which your particular business is susceptible to money laundering 
and terrorist financing. For example, business you conduct with other 
U.S. dealers subject to the rule, and established customers or 
suppliers, presents a relatively low level of risk. On the other hand, 
business conducted with parties located in, or transactions for which 
payment or account reconciliation is routed through accounts located 
in, jurisdictions that have been identified as particularly vulnerable 
to money laundering or terrorist financing, present a significantly 
higher risk, and therefore require greater diligence for detecting 
transactions that may involve money laundering or terrorist financing.
    You should look at the FinCEN Web site for information and updates 
on money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as they apply to 
your industry.
    You should talk with colleagues in your industry and consult 
industry trade associations to learn what the best practices are among 
dealers.
    Finally, you should consider all of the things that you learn in 
the context of your own business. FinCEN does not expect that this 
program can prevent all potential money laundering. What is expected is 
that your business will take prudent steps, with the same kind of 
thought and care that you take to guard against other crimes, such as 
theft or fraud.
    (2) A compliance officer who is responsible for ensuring that the 
program is implemented effectively.
    The compliance officer is an employee or group of employees who 
will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of your anti-money 
laundering and counter-terrorist financing program. This person will be 
responsible on a day-to-day basis for ensuring that the steps within 
your own program are fully implemented. As such, this person should be 
someone with enough authority to achieve this important task. The 
amount of time devoted to these duties will depend on the level of 
risk. A dealer is not required to designate a person to serve on a 
full-time basis as a compliance officer for purposes of the interim 
final rule, unless the level of risk or volume of transactions warrants 
that. If your business faces very high level of risk for money 
laundering or terrorist financing, then much will be required of this 
person. If your exposure to these risks is more moderate, then the 
level of effort will be commensurate with that risk.
    In all cases, however, the compliance officer should be thoroughly 
familiar with the operations of the business itself and with all 
aspects of your anti-money laundering program, as well as with the 
requirements of the BSA and applicable FinCEN forms, and should have 
read carefully all applicable documents issued by FinCEN or on FinCEN's 
Web page.
    (3) Ongoing training of appropriate persons concerning their 
responsibilities under the program.
    You should first consider what training is appropriate for each 
individual employee. Some employees may require no training on the 
program, because of their duties. Others may require a great deal of 
training. The training should be clearly understood by your employees, 
and the compliance officer should be available to answer all questions 
posed by employees. Remember that you should periodically retrain your 
employees on your program as may be necessary to ensure that they 
understand and can fully implement your program.
    (4) Independent testing to monitor and maintain an adequate 
program.
    Some person or group of people who are not working specifically for 
the compliance officer on the anti-money laundering program should be 
selected to determine whether the program has been appropriately 
implemented and is working. For example, if the program requires that a 
particular employee be trained once every six months, then the 
independent testing should determine whether the training occurred and 
whether the training was adequate. Independent testing does not mean 
that an outside party must be hired, although outside parties may be 
utilized to conduct the independent review. It does mean, though, that 
the testing should be a fair and unbiased appraisal of the success in 
implementing the anti-money laundering program, and the results of the 
independent testing should be put into writing, including any 
recommendations for improvement.
    Independent testers should carefully consider all the decisions 
made by the compliance officer, such as the level of risk faced by the 
dealer for money laundering and terrorist financing, the frequency of 
training, etc. However, the decision as to how best to establish and 
operate the program is not a task for the independent tester. The 
independent testing is intended to confirm that the program operates 
properly.
    4(b) What resources are available to help me establish an adequate 
program?
    The preamble to the interim final rule, including these FAQs, 
provides the foundation for dealers to begin the process of 
establishing their own anti-money laundering program. Going forward, 
FinCEN will be issuing additional guidance to this industry. All such 
guidance will be posted in FinCEN's Web site, http://www.fincen.gov. 
Additionally, FinCEN operates a regulatory helpline, 1-800-949-2732, to 
provide answers to specific compliance questions. Finally, FinCEN will 
continue to work with the IRS, which has been delegated the authority 
to examine dealers for compliance with the interim final rule, to 
provide outreach and training about anti-money laundering issues.
    5(a) When do I have to implement my anti-money laundering program?
    As explained above, you first need to determine whether, based on 
your business activities during calendar year 2005, you are required to 
have an anti-money laundering program for 2006. (If the calendar year 
is not the same as your tax year, you may use your tax year instead.) 
If you are required to have an anti-money laundering program for 2006, 
it has to be implemented by January 1, 2006, or six months after that 
date you become subject to the anti-money laundering program 
requirement. You should start developing your program as soon as you 
can to be sure you have it in place by that date.
    5(b) I am not required to have an anti-money laundering program for 
2006. Will I need to have one in 2007?
    If you are not required to establish an anti-money laundering 
program based on your 2005 business activities, you will need to assess 
your 2006 business activities to see if you have to establish an anti-
money laundering program in 2007, which would have to be in place 
beginning six months after the date you become subject to the anti-
money laundering program requirement. The same assessment needs to be 
made every year to determine if you will be required to have an anti-
money laundering program the following year.

[[Page 33715]]

    5(c) I am required to have an anti-money laundering program for 
2006. How long must it continue?
    If you are required to establish an anti-money laundering program 
for 2006, you must maintain it as long as you continue to be a 
``dealer'' under the rule. If, based on your business activities for 
2006, you no longer satisfy the criteria for being a dealer, you do not 
need to continue your anti-money laundering program in 2007. But you 
will need to assess your business activities in 2007 to see if you need 
to re-implement your program in 2008.
    6. Am I required to file Suspicious Activity Reports as part of my 
anti-money laundering program?
    This interim final rule requires dealers to establish anti-money 
laundering programs but does not require a dealer to file reports of 
suspicious activity with FinCEN. However, dealers are strongly 
encouraged to file suspicious activity reports when they suspect the 
transaction or the funds involved has/have an illegal source or purpose 
or when the transaction has no apparent business or lawful purpose. 
Where appropriate, dealers should immediately contact law enforcement 
or FinCEN through its hotline.
    An integral part of the dealer's anti-money laundering program is 
to assess the risks and vulnerabilities of the business and to develop 
policies, procedures and internal controls to address those risks. This 
should include procedures and controls for identifying ``suspicious'' 
activities and dealing with them accordingly. Procedures for dealing 
with suspicious activities may include guidance for when it is 
appropriate in the context of the business and the activity to (1) 
contact local or Federal law enforcement authorities, (2) file a 
suspicious activity report with FinCEN (FinCEN recommends using the 
Money Services Business SAR Form TD F 90-22.56, available at http://www.fincen.gov/reg_bsaforms.html), (3) check the ``suspicious 
activity'' box on a Form 8300 filed on a particular transaction, or (4) 
report suspected terrorist activities to FinCEN using its Financial 
Institutions Hotline (1-866-556-3974). Any dealer, or any of its 
officers, directors, employees or agents, that makes a voluntary SAR 
filing shall not be liable to any person under Federal, state or local 
law, or under an arbitration contract, for such a filing or for failing 
to provide notice of the filing to the subject of the filing.\23\ We 
also caution, however, that a dealer, or any of its officers, 
directors, employees, or agents, that makes a voluntary SAR filing may 
not notify any person involved in the reported transaction that a SAR 
has been filed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3).
    \24\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Do I still need to report cash receipts of in excess of $10,000 
on Form 8300?
    Yes. Nothing in this interim final rule affects the existing 
obligation of a business to report cash receipts in excess of $10,000 
in one transaction, or two or more related transactions, on Form 8300. 
31 CFR 103.30. In particular, businesses excluded from this interim 
final rule are not relieved of their existing obligation to file Form 
8300. To the contrary, FinCEN regards the filing of Form 8300 as an 
essential reporting component of the Bank Secrecy Act, especially for 
this industry that does not presently have a suspicious activity 
reporting obligation.

VI. Request for Comments

    FinCEN is issuing this rule as an interim final rule in order to 
obtain further public comment on the specific issues addressed below. 
FinCEN encourages comments on any or all of these issues from all 
interested persons, and particularly persons engaged in commerce in 
finished goods containing jewels, precious metals or precious stones. 
Comments received on or before July 25, 2005, will be carefully 
considered in the development of the final rule that will supercede 
this interim final rule. The final rule will be identical to the 
interim final rule, except for any changes made in response to comments 
received on the following issues. Please refer to the instructions 
under ADDRESSES for information on how to submit comments.

A. Silver

    Section 103.140(a)(4) of the interim final rule defines the term 
``precious metal'' to include silver as proposed in the NPRM. FinCEN 
did not receive any comments on the inclusion of silver within this 
definition. Nonetheless, we are soliciting comments on whether the 
proposed provision should be included in a final rule. Although silver 
has historically been considered to be a precious metal, silver 
recently has been trading at approximately $7.00 per ounce. In 
contrast, platinum recently has been trading at approximately $860.00 
per ounce, gold at approximately $420.00 per ounce, and palladium at 
approximately $185.00 per ounce. Comments are specifically requested on 
the following issues:
    1. Should silver continue to be defined as a ``precious metal'' for 
purposes of the final rule?
    2. The inclusion of silver in the interim final rule, taken 
together with the applicability of the interim final rule to dealers in 
finished goods that derive 50 percent or more of their value from 
silver (see below), requires dealers in silver to develop and implement 
anti-money laundering programs (assuming that the applicable purchase 
and sale thresholds are satisfied). Should finished goods containing 
silver be covered by the final rule? What types of finished goods 
containing silver are likely to be covered by the final rule in light 
of the definitional thresholds for precious metal and finished goods 
contained in the interim final rule? What types of finished goods (for 
example, brazing alloys and medical products) should not be covered by 
a final rule? What percentage of the sales price of various types of 
finished goods containing silver is attributable to the silver 
contained in the good? Commenters are specifically requested to 
consider the potential impact of the interim final rule on persons and 
businesses that manufacture ``inexpensive'' jewelry and other items 
containing silver intended for retail sale to the public, as well as 
the impact on wholesalers and distributors of such goods that purchase 
and sell them in the course of commerce, and on dealers in silver 
alloys used for medical purposes. Comments are also specifically 
requested on the extent to which wholesalers, distributors, and 
retailers of such goods will know, in the ordinary course of business, 
whether they are dealing in goods that derive 50 percent or more of 
their value from silver.
    3. Should a final rule include an overall minimum price-per-ounce 
level at which silver (or any other metal) would be deemed a ``precious 
metal'' for purposes of the rule? Commenters answering in the 
affirmative are requested to recommend an appropriate minimum price-
per-ounce level and a basis for that recommendation.

B. Jewels and Precious Stones

    The definition of ``precious metal'' contains a finite list of 
metals and incorporates an objective purity threshold of 500 parts per 
1000. In contrast, the definitions of ``jewel'' (section 103.140(a)(2)) 
and ``precious stone'' (section 103.140(a)(4)), while listing commonly 
recognized jewels and precious stones, also extend to any substance 
that is of ``gem quality market-recognized beauty, rarity, and value.'' 
Would it be appropriate to add to these definitions an overall minimum

[[Page 33716]]

price-per-carat or other objective threshold indicating at which point 
the jewel or stone would be deemed a ``jewel'' or ``precious stone'' 
for purposes of a final rule? If so, what would be an appropriate 
threshold and why?

C. Finished Goods

    Section 103.140(a)(1)(iv) of the interim final rule includes within 
the definition of ``covered goods,'' finished goods including, but not 
limited to, jewelry, numismatic items, and antiques, that derive 50 
percent or more of their value from the jewels, precious metals, or 
precious stones contained or attached to such finished goods. The 50 
percent value threshold for finished goods in these provisions is, in 
principle, consistent with the 500 parts per 1000 purity threshold for 
precious metals in section 103.140(a)(4).
    1. Is the 50 percent value threshold described above an appropriate 
threshold for finished goods containing jewels, precious metals, or 
precious stones, or to which jewels, precious metals, or precious 
stones are attached? If not, what would be an appropriate threshold and 
why? Should jewelry be subject to a threshold different from that of 
other finished goods? If so, why, and what would constitute an 
appropriate definition of ``jewelry''?
    2. Comments are also specifically requested on whether, in the 
ordinary course of business, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers 
of finished goods (including persons such as antique dealers) will 
know, and if so how (e.g., pursuant to Federal Trade Commission 
requirements \25\), whether the goods they are dealing in derive 50 
percent or more of their value from jewels, precious metals, or 
precious stones, and thereby cause them to be a ``dealer'' required to 
have an anti-money laundering program under the terms of the interim 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ``Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter 
Industries'' http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/jewel-gd.htm, effective 
April 10, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Effects on Small Businesses

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
FinCEN certified that the preceding notice of proposed rulemaking would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses or other small entitites. Although FinCEN specifically 
requested public comments on the impact of the rule on small dealers, 
no such comments were received, and this interim rule repeats that 
certification.
    In view of the issues raised above, FinCEN again solicits comments 
on the potential impacts of the rule on small businesses (including 
manufacturers, dealers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers) that 
may be ``dealers'' subject to the provisions of the rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FinCEN certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this interim final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Because the requirements of the rule closely parallel the requirements 
for anti-money laundering programs for all financial institutions 
mandated by section 352 of the USA Patriot Act, the costs associated 
with the establishment and implementation of anti-money laundering 
programs are attributable to the statute and not the rule. Moreover, 
FinCEN believes that the definition of ``dealer'' in section 
103.140(a)(2), which excludes dealers who have less than $50,000 in 
gross proceeds derived from covered goods in a year, will exclude most 
small dealers from the requirements of the rule.
    Furthermore, the rule provides for substantial flexibility in how 
each dealer may meet its requirements. This flexibility is designed to 
account for differences among dealers, including size. In this regard, 
the costs associated with developing and implementing an anti-money 
laundering program will be commensurate with the size of a dealer. If a 
dealer is small, the burden to comply with section 352 and the rule 
should be similarly small.
    In the NPRM, FinCEN requested comments on the impact of the 
proposed rule on small dealers. No comments on this issue were 
received.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in the interim final rule 
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), and assigned OMB Control Number 1506-0030. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a valid control number 
assigned by OMB.
    The collection of information is the recordkeeping requirement in 
section 103.140(b). The information will be used by Federal agencies to 
verify compliance by dealers with the provisions of sections 103.140. 
The collection of information is mandatory.
    Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 20,000.
    Estimated Average Annual Burden Per Recordkeeper: The estimated 
average burden associated with the recordkeeping requirement in section 
103.140(b) rule is 1 hour per recordkeeper.
    Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 20,000 hours.
    Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate should be 
directed to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the 
Treasury, Post Office Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183, and to the Office of 
Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the 
Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, 
Washington, DC 20503.

IX. Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this rule is not a significant 
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a 
regulatory impact analysis is not required.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Banks and banking, Currency, Investigations, Law 
enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 103 of title 31 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 103--FINANCIAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING OF CURRENCY AND 
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 
and 5316-5332; title III, secs. 311, 312, 313, 314, 326, 352, Pub. 
L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.


0
2. Subpart I of part 103 is amended by adding new Sec.  103.140 to read 
as follows:


Sec.  103.140  Anti-money laundering programs for dealers in precious 
metals, precious stones, or jewels.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Covered goods means:
    (i) Jewels (as defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section);
    (ii) Precious metals (as defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section);
    (iii) Precious stones (as defined in paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section); and
    (iv) Finished goods (including, but not limited to, jewelry, 
numismatic

[[Page 33717]]

items, and antiques), that derive 50 percent or more of their value 
from jewels, precious metals, or precious stones contained in or 
attached to such finished goods;
    (2) Dealer. (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 
(a)(2)(iii) of this section, the term ``dealer'' means a person engaged 
within the United States as a business in the purchase and sale of 
covered goods and who, during the prior calendar or tax year:
    (A) Purchased more than $50,000 in covered goods; and
    (B) Received more than $50,000 in gross proceeds from the sale of 
covered goods.
    (ii) For purposes of this section, the term ``dealer'' does not 
include:
    (A) A retailer (as defined in paragraph (a)(7) of this section), 
unless the retailer, during the prior calendar or tax year, purchased 
more than $50,000 in covered goods from persons other than dealers or 
other retailers (such as members of the general public or foreign 
sources of supply); or
    (B) A person licensed or authorized under the laws of any State (or 
political subdivision thereof) to conduct business as a pawnbroker, but 
only to the extent such person is engaged in pawn transactions 
(including the sale of pawn loan collateral).
    (iii) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the terms 
``purchase'' and ``sale'' do not include a retail transaction in which 
a retailer or a dealer accepts from a customer covered goods, the value 
of which the retailer or dealer credits to the account of the customer, 
and the retailer or dealer does not provide funds to the customer in 
exchange for such covered goods.
    (iv) For purposes of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this section, the 
terms ``purchase'' and ``sale'' do not include the purchase of jewels, 
precious metals, or precious stones that are incorporated into 
machinery or equipment to be used for industrial purposes, and the 
purchase and sale of such machinery or equipment.
    (v) For purposes of applying the $50,000 thresholds in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section to finished goods defined 
in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, only the value of jewels, 
precious metals, or precious stones contained in, or attached to, such 
goods shall be taken into account.
    (3) Jewel means an organic substance with gem quality market-
recognized beauty, rarity, and value, and includes pearl, amber, and 
coral.
    (4) Precious metal means:
    (i) Gold, iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, 
or silver, having a level of purity of 500 or more parts per thousand; 
and
    (ii) An alloy containing 500 or more parts per thousand, in the 
aggregate, of two or more of the metals listed in paragraph (a)(3)(i) 
of this section.
    (5) Precious stone means a substance with gem quality market-
recognized beauty, rarity, and value, and includes diamond, corundum 
(including rubies and sapphires), beryl (including emeralds and 
aquamarines), chrysoberyl, spinel, topaz, zircon, tourmaline, garnet, 
crystalline and cryptocrystalline quartz, olivine peridot, tanzanite, 
jadeite jade, nephrite jade, spodumene, feldspar, turquoise, lapis 
lazuli, and opal.
    (6) Person shall have the same meaning as provided in Sec.  
103.11(z).
    (7) Retailer means a person engaged within the United States in the 
business of sales primarily to the public of covered goods.
    (b) Anti-money laundering program requirement. (1) Each dealer 
shall develop and implement a written anti-money laundering program 
reasonably designed to prevent the dealer from being used to facilitate 
money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities through the 
purchase and sale of covered goods. The program must be approved by 
senior management. A dealer shall make its anti-money laundering 
program available to the Department of Treasury through FinCEN or its 
designee upon request.
    (2) To the extent that a retailer's purchases from persons other 
than dealers and other retailers exceeds the $50,000 threshold 
contained in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), the anti-money laundering 
compliance program required of the retailer under this paragraph need 
only address such purchases.
    (c) Minimum requirements. At a minimum, the anti-money laundering 
program shall:
    (1) Incorporate policies, procedures, and internal controls based 
upon the dealer's assessment of the money laundering and terrorist 
financing risks associated with its line(s) of business. Policies, 
procedures, and internal controls developed and implemented by a dealer 
under this section shall include provisions for complying with the 
applicable requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. 5311 et 
seq.), and this part.
    (i) For purposes of making the risk assessment required by 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a dealer shall take into account all 
relevant factors including, but not limited to:
    (A) The type(s) of products the dealer buys and sells, as well as 
the nature of the dealer's customers, suppliers, distribution channels, 
and geographic locations;
    (B) The extent to which the dealer engages in transactions other 
than with established customers or sources of supply, or other dealers 
subject to this rule; and
    (C) Whether the dealer engages in transactions for which payment or 
account reconciliation is routed to or from accounts located in 
jurisdictions that have been identified by the Department of State as a 
sponsor of international terrorism under 22 U.S.C. 2371; designated as 
non-cooperative with international anti-money laundering principles or 
procedures by an intergovernmental group or organization of which the 
United States is a member and with which designation the United States 
representative or organization concurs; or designated by the Secretary 
of the Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318A as warranting special 
measures due to money laundering concerns.
    (ii) A dealer's program shall incorporate policies, procedures, and 
internal controls to assist the dealer in identifying transactions that 
may involve use of the dealer to facilitate money laundering or 
terrorist financing, including provisions for making reasonable 
inquiries to determine whether a transaction involves money laundering 
or terrorist financing, and for refusing to consummate, withdrawing 
from, or terminating such transactions. Factors that may indicate a 
transaction is designed to involve use of the dealer to facilitate 
money laundering or terrorist financing include, but are not limited 
to:
    (A) Unusual payment methods, such as the use of large amounts of 
cash, multiple or sequentially numbered money orders, traveler's 
checks, or cashier's checks, or payment from third parties;
    (B) Unwillingness by a customer or supplier to provide complete or 
accurate contact information, financial references, or business 
affiliations;
    (C) Attempts by a customer or supplier to maintain an unusual 
degree of secrecy with respect to the transaction, such as a request 
that normal business records not be kept;
    (D) Purchases or sales that are unusual for the particular customer 
or supplier, or type of customer or supplier; and
    (E) Purchases or sales that are not in conformity with standard 
industry practice.
    (2) Designate a compliance officer who will be responsible for 
ensuring that:

[[Page 33718]]

    (i) The anti-money laundering program is implemented effectively;
    (ii) The anti-money laundering program is updated as necessary to 
reflect changes in the risk assessment, requirements of this part, and 
further guidance issued by the Department of the Treasury; and
    (iii) Appropriate personnel are trained in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (3) Provide for on-going education and training of appropriate 
persons concerning their responsibilities under the program.
    (4) Provide for independent testing to monitor and maintain an 
adequate program. The scope and frequency of the testing shall be 
commensurate with the risk assessment conducted by the dealer in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Such testing may be 
conducted by an officer or employee of the dealer, so long as the 
tester is not the person designated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section 
or a person involved in the operation of the program.
    (d) Effective date. A dealer must develop and implement an anti-
money laundering program that complies with the requirements of this 
section on or before the later of January 1, 2006, or six months after 
the date a dealer becomes subject to the requirements of this section.

    Dated: June 3, 2005.
William J. Fox,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 05-11431 Filed 6-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P