USA Patriot Act: Additional Guidance Could Improve Implementation
of Regulations Related to Customer Identification and Information
Sharing Procedures (06-MAY-05, GAO-05-412).			 
                                                                 
Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed after the	 
September 11 terrorist attacks, amended U.S. anti-money 	 
laundering laws and imposed new requirements on financial	 
institutions. Section 326 of the act required the development of 
minimum standards for verifying the identity of financial	 
institution customers. Section 314 required the development of	 
regulations encouraging the further sharing of information	 
between law enforcement agencies and the financial industry and  
between the institutions themselves. Because of concerns about	 
the implementation of these new provisions, GAO determined how	 
(1) the government developed the regulations, educated the	 
financial industry on them, and challenges it encountered; (2)	 
regulators have updated guidance, trained examiners, and examined
firms for compliance; and (3) the new regulations have affected  
law enforcement investigations. 				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-412 					        
    ACCNO:   A23938						        
  TITLE:     USA Patriot Act: Additional Guidance Could Improve       
Implementation of Regulations Related to Customer Identification 
and Information Sharing Procedures				 
     DATE:   05/06/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Consumer protection				 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Financial institutions				 
	     Identity verification				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Law enforcement agencies				 
	     Federal law					 
	     Program management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Information sharing				 
	     Customer Identification Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-412

                 United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2005

USA PATRIOT ACT

Additional Guidance Could Improve Implementation of Regulations Related to
           Customer Identification and Information Sharing Procedures

                                       a

GAO-05-412

[IMG]

May 2005

USA PATRIOT ACT

Additional Guidance Could Improve Implementation of Regulations Related to
Customer Identification and Information Sharing Procedures

What GAO Found

Treasury (including its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)),
the federal financial regulators, and self-regulatory organizations (SRO)
overcame challenges to create regulations that apply consistently to a
diverse financial sector and have used several outreach mechanisms to help
the financial industry understand and comply with Customer Identification
Program (CIP) requirements under section 326 and information sharing
requirements under section 314. However, several implementation challenges
remain. Industry officials told us some of their concerns have been
addressed but they are still concerned about (1) how some CIP requirements
will be interpreted during compliance examinations, (2) the lack of
feedback from law enforcement on information provided by financial
institutions through section 314(a), and (3) the extent to which they can
share information with each other under section 314(b).

The six federal financial regulators and five SROs in our review have
issued examination guidance covering sections 326 and 314, subsequently
trained examiners, and begun examining financial institutions for
compliance with CIP and section 314. GAO's review of examinations showed
progress, but coverage varied in part because the examinations were
conducted during early implementation. One aspect of CIP that was not
always covered in examinations was whether financial institutions had
adequately developed a CIP appropriate for their business lines and types
of customers. However, this aspect of CIP is critical for ensuring that
the identification and verification procedures are appropriate for types
of customers and accounts that are at higher risk of being linked to money
laundering or terrorist activities. Some examinations also revealed
implementation difficulties related to CIP that could lead to
inconsistencies in the way examiners conduct examinations. For example,
some examiners did not differentiate between the CIP requirement and other
procedures that require customer identification information. Coverage in
the examinations GAO reviewed of how institutions had implemented section
314 requirements was somewhat lower than for CIP, in part, because CIP
received more attention from examiners and information sharing between
financial institutions is voluntary. In the examinations GAO reviewed,
apparent violations of the CIP requirement and section 314(a) regulations
were mostly addressed through informal actions between the institution and
the regulator.

Officials from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement
agencies told us that CIP and section 314 have assisted them in the
investigation of money laundering and terrorist financing cases. Some
officials said that CIP has been useful because financial institutions
have more information on their customers so they obtain more useful
information when issuing grand jury subpoenas and other requests for
information. Many officials said the 314(a) process had improved
coordination between the law enforcement community and the financial
industry and increased the speed and efficiency of investigations.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Developing Regulations for CIP and Section 314 That Applied to a

Wide Range of Financial Institutions Was Difficult and Complex

Treasury and the Federal Financial Regulators Have Reached Out to the
Financial Industry to Assist It in Implementing CIP and Section 314 Rules,
but Industry Concerns Remain

Financial Regulators and SROs Have Updated Examination Guidance and
Trained Examiners to Evaluate Compliance with CIP and Section 314

Examinations and Enforcement Actions Highlight Progress and Difficulties
in Overseeing Compliance with the CIP Requirement and Section 314

Law Enforcement Officials Believe That Section 314(a) and CIP Have Been
Valuable Tools in Terrorist and Money Laundering Investigations

Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 5 9

11

21

28

36

59 62 64 64

Appendixes

          Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 67 Appendix II: Comments from the
       Department of the Treasury 71 Appendix III: Comments from the National
     Credit Union Administration 73 Appendix IV: Comments from the Securities
                and Exchange Commission 74 Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
                                                           Acknowledgments 76

                              Related Products 77

Tables         Table 1: Banking Regulators Anti-Money Laundering        
                                    Training-2004                          33 
            Table 2: Securities Regulators Anti-Money Laundering Training- 
                                        2004                               35 
               Table 3: Coverage of CIP in Our Sample of Examinations      
                       Conducted between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004 38 

Contents

Table 4:	Anti-Money Laundering Policies That Depend on Procedures to
Verify Customer Identities 43

Table 5:	Coverage of Section 314(a) in Our Sample of Examinations
Conducted between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004 46

Table 6:	Coverage of Section 314(b) in Our Sample of Examinations
Conducted between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004 49

Table 7:	Examples of Minor and Significant 314(a) Deficiencies and
Violations Identified in the Sample 51

Table 8:	Examples of Minor and Significant CIP Deficiencies and Violations
Identified in the Sample 51

Table 9:	Recent Enforcement Actions and Civil Money Penalties against
Banks That Included CIP and Section 314(a) Violations 54

Table 10: Recent Enforcement Actions against Securities Broker-Dealers
That Included CIP and Section 314(a) Violations 56

Table 11: Description of Our Approach for Sampling Examinations Covering
CIP and Section 314 69

                               Key Dates in the Rulemaking Process for CIP    
Figures Figure 1: Figure 2:  Requirements for Customer Identification   13
                                                   and                     
                                         Verification Procedures           15 
                     Figure 3:   Key Dates of the Rulemaking Process for   18 
                                               Section 314                 
                     Figure 4:   The 314(a) Information Sharing Process    
                                                after the                  
                                               Moratorium                  19 

Contents

Abbreviations

BSA Bank Secrecy Act
CBOT Chicago Board of Trade
CFTC Commodity Futures Trading Commission
CIP Customer Identification Program
CME Chicago Mercantile Exchange
EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
FAQ Frequently Asked Question
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigations
FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FFIEC Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCUA National Credit Union Administration
NFA National Futures Association
NYSE New York Stock Exchange
OCC Office of the Comptroller of Currency
OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Control
OTS Office of Thrift Supervision
SAR Suspicious Activity Report
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SRO Self Regulatory Organization
USA PATRIOT Act Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

May 6, 2005

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

The Honorable John N. Hostettler
Chairman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the
USA PATRIOT Act (PATRIOT Act), arming the U.S. government with new
tools for investigating terrorism and terrorist financing.1 The passage of
the
PATRIOT Act was prompted, in part, by the enhanced awareness of the
importance of combating terrorist financing as part of the U.S.
government's overall anti-money laundering efforts, because terrorist
financing and money laundering can involve similar techniques and use the
U.S. financial system to support criminal activity. Title III of the
PATRIOT
Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act2 (BSA)-the key statute that governs
the U.S. government's anti-money laundering regulatory structure. Two
provisions of Title III-sections 314 and 326-were specifically highlighted
by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(also known as the 9-11 Commission) in its report on terrorist financing
as
being important provisions in detecting and preventing terrorist
financing.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the federal
financial regulators, and self-regulatory organizations (SRO) are

1Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, Pub. L.
No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). We will refer to the act as the "PATRIOT
Act".

2The body of law commonly referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act encompasses
numerous provisions enacted by Titles I & II of Pub. L. No. 91-508, 84
Stat. 1114 (1970), and codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. S:S: 5311-5332 and
12 U.S.C. S:S: 1829b and 1951-1959. BSA requires reports and records of
transactions involving cash, negotiable instruments, or foreign currency
and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations to
ensure that adequate records are maintained of transactions that have a
high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory investigations or
proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence
activities.

responsible for ensuring that the financial institutions comply with the
BSA and BSA regulations through examinations and enforcement actions.3

Section 326 of Title III required the Secretary of the Treasury to develop
regulations establishing minimum standards for financial institutions to
follow when verifying the identity of its customers in connection with the
opening of an account.4 In May 2003, the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury), through FinCEN, and the federal financial regulators jointly
adopted these regulations prescribed by section 326 regarding certain
financial institutions.5 The compliance date for these new regulations was
October 1, 2003. These regulations require financial institutions to
establish a written customer identification program (CIP) that includes
procedures for obtaining minimum identification information from customers
that open an account with the financial institution, such as a person's
date of birth, a government identification number, and physical address.
The regulations stipulated that the CIP must include risk-based procedures
for verifying the identification of a customer that enable the financial
institution to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of
the customer. The regulations implementing section 326 are commonly
referred to as the Customer Identification Program regulations and will be

3The seven federal financial regulators are the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve Board System (Federal Reserve), Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC),
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC). The five SROs included in our review are NASD
(formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers) and the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) for securities broker-dealers and the National
Futures Association (NFA), Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and the
Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) for futures commission merchants and
introducing brokers. The Internal Revenue Service and the Commissioner of
Customs also have delegated authority to investigate and enforce
compliance with certain provisions of the BSA regulations.

4Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act added a new subsection (l) to 31 U.S.C.
S:5318.

5See Customer Identification Programs for Banks, Savings Associations,
Credit Unions and Non-Federally Regulated Banks, 68 Fed. Reg. 25090
(2003); Customer Identification Programs for Broker-Dealers, 68 Fed. Reg.
25113 (2003); Customer Identification Programs for Futures Commission
Merchants and Introducing Brokers, 68 Fed. Reg. 25149 (2003); and Customer
Identification Programs for Mutual Funds, 68 Fed. Reg. 25131 (2003).

referred to collectively as the "CIP requirement" or the "CIP rule" in
this report.6

The provisions of section 314 are aimed at encouraging information sharing
among financial institutions, their regulators, and law enforcement
authorities.7 Section 314(a) directed the Secretary to adopt regulations
that encourage regulators and law enforcement authorities to share
information with financial institutions regarding individuals, entities,
and organizations engaged in or reasonably suspected based on credible
evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities.
Treasury, through FinCEN, adopted final regulations implementing section
314 information sharing procedures in September 2002. The 314(a)
regulations set forth the process by which law enforcement agencies
provide names and identifying information on suspects to FinCEN.8 FinCEN
distributes this information to financial institutions across the country
and requires that institutions search their accounts to identify any
matches. Section 314(b) provides a mechanism to encourage financial
institutions, upon notice to the Secretary, to share information with one
another regarding individuals, entities or countries suspected of possible
terrorist or money laundering activities by providing financial
institutions with a safe harbor from liability for disclosing nonpublic
personal customer information. Treasury adopted regulations to clarify
which financial institutions could share information under section 314(b)
and establish the process to be followed by financial institutions that
wish to voluntarily share information about their customers and avail
themselves of the statutory safe harbor from liability for disclosing such
customer information.9

6Although Section 326 directs Treasury and the federal financial
regulators to adopt CIP requirements for all "financial institutions,"
which is defined very broadly to encompass a variety of entities, the
Secretary may exempt certain financial institutions and accounts from the
CIP requirements. To date, Treasury and the federal financial regulators
have jointly adopted, and this report is limited to a review of, CIP
requirements applicable to (a) banks that are subject to regulation by one
of the federal banking regulators, as well as nonfederally insured credit
unions, private banks and trust companies; (b) securities brokerdealers;
(c) futures commission merchants and introducing brokers; and (d) mutual
funds. Accordingly, unless the context otherwise requires, the term
"financial institutions" refers to those financial institutions subject to
the CIP requirements.

7Section 314 is an uncodified provision that appears in the Historical and
Statutory Notes to 31 U.S.C. S: 5311.

8Information Sharing between Federal Law Enforcement Agencies and
Financial Institutions, 31 C.F.R. S: 103.100 (2002).

9Voluntary Information Sharing among Financial Institutions, 31 C.F.R. S:
103.110.

To help ensure that the requirements of sections 314 and 326 of the
PATRIOT Act are being implemented effectively, you requested that we
determine how (1) Treasury (through FinCEN) and the federal financial
regulators developed the regulations and addressed challenges, (2) FinCEN
and the federal financial regulators informed and educated financial
institutions about the new regulations and the challenges such
institutions encountered during implementation, (3) the federal financial
regulators have updated examination guidance and trained examiners with
respect to sections 314 and 326, (4) the federal financial regulators have
examined firms for compliance and taken enforcement actions with sections
314 and 326, and (5) the new regulations implementing sections 314 and 326
have affected federal law enforcement investigations and Department of
Justice prosecutions of money laundering and terrorist financing cases.

We determined how Treasury (through FinCEN), and the federal financial
regulators developed the regulations and overcame challenges by reviewing
documentation of the rulemaking process, including comment letters, and
interviewing agency officials. To determine how FinCEN and the regulators
have educated the industry, we interviewed officials from FinCEN, the
federal financial regulators, and SROs about how they have informed and
educated the industry and reviewed outreach materials provided to us. We
identified implementation challenges encountered by financial institutions
through interviews of company officials and industry trade associations
representing banks, credit unions, securities brokerdealers, mutual funds,
futures commission merchants, and futures introducing brokers. To
determine how the regulators and SROs have updated examination guidance
and trained examiners, we reviewed draft and final guidance, collected
information on examiner training courses and the number of examiners
trained for fiscal year 2004, and interviewed officials on their
examination guidance and training programs. We also attended an anti-money
laundering course for banking examiners. To determine how the regulators
and SROs have examined for compliance and taken enforcement actions, we
collected data on the number of exams completed from October 1, 2003,
through May 31, 2004, and reviewed a sample of 176 examinations from six
federal financial regulators and five

SROs.10 We randomly selected approximately 20 examinations from each
regulator and SRO to ensure that the sample was not biased, but our sample
should not be interpreted to be representative of all examinations
conducted during this time period. We also interviewed officials from
FinCEN, the federal financial regulators, and SROs about their examination
and enforcement policies and reviewed recent formal enforcement actions.
To determine how these new regulations could improve law enforcement
investigations, we interviewed officials representing several law
enforcement agencies and Department of Justice officials, including
supervisory prosecutors who have been involved with money laundering and
terrorist financing cases.

We conducted our work between February 2004 and March 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional
information on our scope and methodology is discussed in appendix I.

Results in Brief	Treasury and the federal financial regulators had to
overcome many challenges to develop regulations implementing the
requirements of sections 314 and 326. Developing regulations under section
326 was particularly difficult because Treasury and the federal financial
regulators wanted to ensure that CIP procedures were appropriate and
consistent across a wide variety of financial institutions that have
diverse business models and financial products. In addition, some
financial institutions have arrangements with other institutions to
process customer transactions. These arrangements and the diversity of
business models created challenges for Treasury and the federal financial
regulators and concerns among the industry about reasonable levels of
accountability for verifying the identity of customers. Developing
regulations for section 314 presented practical problems on how to develop
a process for information sharing between law enforcement and industry and
a process that allows financial institutions to share information with
each other. Soon after finalizing regulations, due to feedback from
industry that it was overwhelmed by law

10We selected NASD and NYSE because they oversee the largest percentage of
firms in the securities industry and NFA, CBOT, and CME because they
oversee the largest number of firms in the futures industry. CFTC was not
included in our review of examination guidance and sample of examinations
because CFTC conducts oversight reviews of the SROs and at the time of our
review, CFTC officials told us that the oversight examinations of SROs
they had conducted to date did not focus on compliance with sections 314
and 326.

enforcement information requests, FinCEN suspended the section 314(a)
information sharing process and developed a more streamlined approach.
Establishing an information sharing process under section 314(b) that
defined the parameters of information sharing entitled to the safe harbor
protection also presented difficulties because Treasury had to consider
how to encourage information sharing while still protecting the customers'
right to privacy.

Treasury, the federal financial regulators, and SROs have reached out to
the financial industry to help financial institutions understand and
comply with the CIP and the section 314 information sharing regulations,
though several implementation challenges remain. Treasury, the federal
financial regulators, and SROs have distributed written guidance to firms
under their jurisdiction, addressed practical, implementation issues at
numerous venues such as industry conferences, and clarified the
regulations during compliance examinations. These efforts addressed some
industry concerns, such as the extent to which firms should verify the
identity of existing customers. However, industry officials told us that
they continue to experience challenges in implementing CIP procedures and
they are concerned about how some of the requirements will be interpreted
during examinations. For instance, some industry officials said they
remain unsure how examiners will determine that firms have taken
sufficient steps to verify the identity of customers and when firms can
rely on each other to perform all or some components of a CIP. While
industry officials agreed that FinCEN has streamlined and improved the
314(a) information sharing process since the first information request
went out in November 2002, the implementation of the 314(a) process has
highlighted the tension between law enforcement's duty to protect
sensitive information and the need for law enforcement information to help
industry better monitor possible financial crimes, including terrorist
financing and money laundering. Industry officials continued to be
concerned about the limited feedback received from law enforcement despite
government efforts to aggregate and supply information to industry on the
results of their reporting. Industry officials also said that, although
the 314(b) provision has been useful, distinguishing between information
that they can and cannot share under the provision is sometimes difficult.

All of the federal financial regulators and SROs in our review issued
examination guidance to assess compliance with the CIP requirement and the
section 314 information sharing regulations of the PATRIOT Act, and
subsequently trained their examiners on the new provisions. Banking
regulators jointly issued final examination guidance for section 314 in

October 2003, and the CIP requirement in July 2004. Although banking
regulators did not issue guidance for CIP until several months after the
regulation took effect, examiners were assessing firms for compliance with
the CIP requirement using draft guidance beginning in October 2003. SEC
and the securities SROs issued final guidance individually for both
provisions. CBOT and CME issued final guidance jointly in February 2004
but were examining firms for compliance with the PATRIOT Act as early as
May 2002. NFA issued examination guidance for both provisions by October
2003. Federal financial regulators and SROs continue to update staff on
changes to examination procedures using a variety of tools, including
teleconferences, monthly or bi-annual staff meetings, interagency
bulletins, e-mails, and formal and informal training sessions. By June
2003, all federal financial regulators and SROs had included section 314
regulations and CIP requirements in their examiner training curricula.
Both banking and securities regulators used formal training courses that
are instructor-led and computer-based. Instruction was also provided
internally or by external sources including industry experts and a
financial regulators training school. CFTC and the futures SROs provided
instructor-led and onthe-job training.

The federal financial regulators and SROs have been examining financial
institutions for compliance with CIP and section 314 and taking
enforcement actions, but coverage of the provisions in the exams we
reviewed varied. In addition, our review revealed some implementation
difficulties particularly related to the CIP requirement that could reduce
its effectiveness as it applies to high-risk customers and lead to
examination inconsistencies. Our review of a sample of 176 examinations
conducted from October 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004, showed that CIP
procedures were reviewed in 95 percent of the examinations in our sample.
While most examinations reviewed whether a financial institution had
procedures for meeting the minimum standards for a CIP, fewer examinations
(about 56 percent) documented a review of the financial institution's
risk-based approach for CIP. Therefore, it was not clear whether all
examiners understood that CIP procedures should be more rigorous at
financial institutions that have the types of accounts and customers that
are at a higher risk for money laundering or terrorist activities as
opposed to just meeting the minimum CIP requirements. Also, a few
examinations revealed incorrect interpretations by examiners of certain
aspects of the CIP requirement that could lead to inconsistencies in how
financial institutions understand and apply the CIP requirement. For
example, in six examinations, the examiner confused the CIP requirement
with other antimoney laundering procedures that require customer
identification

information. About 76 percent of the examinations covered section 314(a)
provisions in part because some regulators were still developing
examination procedures, and about 55 percent of the examinations covered
section 314(b) in part because the sharing of information pursuant to this
provision is voluntary. The extent of coverage in the examinations of the
various aspects of the CIP requirement and section 314 provisions may have
also varied because (1) examiners used different approaches to document
their work and therefore may have limited our ability to fully know what
was reviewed and (2) the examinations we reviewed were conducted during
early implementation. Because the regulations were new and many
deficiencies were technical mistakes, federal financial regulators and
SROs mostly took informal actions to address deficiencies or violations of
CIP and section 314.

Officials from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement
agencies told us that section 314(a) and the CIP requirement have assisted
in the investigation of money laundering and terrorist financing cases.
Many of the law enforcement officials we interviewed said that the 314(a)
information sharing process has improved coordination between law
enforcement agencies and financial institutions and has increased the
speed and efficiency of investigations. For example, a senior official
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) described how a 314(a)
information request led to the identification of additional accounts
associated with a suspect across 23 states and 45 financial institutions.
Prior to learning this new information, the FBI was aware of only four
accounts. The law enforcement officials we spoke with also believed that
the section 314(a) process facilitates the flow of information between law
enforcement and financial institutions because the process connects law
enforcement with approximately 20,000 financial institutions, and the
314(a) information requests include points of contact with law
enforcement. Some law enforcement officials told us that CIP has also been
useful because financial institutions have more information about their
customers. Therefore, law enforcement agencies obtain more consistent and
useful customer information when issuing grand jury subpoenas and 314(a)
requests. Justice officials, including those from U.S. Attorneys offices
who have prosecuted money laundering and terrorist financing cases, told
us that decisions about whether to pursue an investigation and prosecute
money laundering cases depend on a myriad of factors and are made on a
case-by-case basis. Therefore, although they believe that the section
314(a) and CIP requirements are important to law enforcement and provide
valuable information to investigations, they did not believe that these
new tools will necessarily result in an increase in the

number of money laundering and terrorist cases that they choose to
prosecute.

In this report, we make recommendations to Treasury, through FinCEN, to
work with the federal financial regulators to develop guidance that should
address industry concerns about some of the CIP requirements and improve
examinations of CIPs. In responding to our draft report, Treasury agreed
that additional guidance would improve implementation of these
regulations.

Background 	Money laundering is the process used to transform monetary
proceeds derived from criminal activities into funds and assets that
appear to have come from legitimate sources. Terrorist financing is
generally characterized by different motives than money laundering and the
funds involved often originate from legitimate sources. However, the
techniques for hiding the movement of funds intended to be used to finance
terrorist activity-techniques to obscure the origin of funds and the
ultimate destination-are often similar to those used to launder money.
Therefore, Treasury, federal law enforcement agencies, and the federal
financial regulators often employ similar approaches and techniques in
trying to detect and prevent both money laundering and terrorist
financing.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA
PATRIOT Act, which was enacted on October 26, 2001. Title III of the
PATRIOT Act amended the BSA. The BSA was enacted by Congress in 1970 and
requires that financial institutions file reports and maintain records
with respect to certain transactions in currency and monetary instruments
that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax,
or regulatory investigations and, as amended by the PATRIOT Act, these
records and reports also have a high degree of usefulness in the conduct
of intelligence or counterintelligence activities.11 As a result, the BSA
helps to provide a paper trail of the activities of money launderers for
law enforcement officials in pursuit of criminal activities. Congress has
amended the BSA several times to give the U.S. government a wider variety
of regulatory tools to combat money laundering. In addition to requiring

1131 U.S.C. S: 5311. The regulations adopted by Treasury implementing the
BSA are codified at Part 103 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (BSA Regulations). As used in this report, and unless
otherwise specified, BSA collectively refers to the statutory provisions
and the BSA Regulations.

regulations for information sharing and customer identification programs,
Title III of the PATRIOT Act expands Treasury's authority to regulate the
activities of U.S. financial institutions and requires a wide variety of
types of financial institutions to maintain anti-money laundering
programs.

Agencies under the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Homeland
Security are to coordinate with each other and with federal financial
regulators in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Within
Treasury, FinCEN, under delegated authority from the Secretary of the
Treasury, is the administrator for the BSA and supports law enforcement
agencies by collecting, analyzing, and coordinating financial intelligence
information to combat money laundering. As a bureau of Treasury, FinCEN
clears all BSA regulations through Treasury. In August 2004, FinCEN
created an Office of Compliance to oversee and work with the federal
financial regulators on BSA examination and compliance matters. FinCEN
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the banking regulators in
September 2004 that laid out procedures for the exchange of certain BSA
information. The MOU requires that the federal banking regulators provide
information on examination policies and procedures and on significant BSA
violations or deficiencies that have occurred at the financial
institutions they supervise, including relevant portions of examination
reports and information on follow-up and resolution. FinCEN will also
provide information to the banking regulators, including information on
FinCEN enforcement actions and analytical products that will identify
various patterns and trends in BSA compliance. FinCEN has been working on
similar MOUs with SEC and CFTC; however, as of March 25, 2005, no
effective dates have been set for either of them.

Department of Justice components involved in efforts to combat money
laundering and terrorist financing include the Criminal Division's Asset
Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Counterterrorism Section, the
FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and
U.S. Attorneys Offices. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also investigates cases
involving money laundering and terrorist activities.

The federal financial regulators who oversee financial institutions and
examine them for compliance with anti-money laundering laws and
regulations include the federal banking regulators-the Federal Reserve,
OCC, OTS, FDIC, and NCUA-and SEC, which regulates the securities markets,
and the CFTC, which regulates commodity futures and options

markets. Because the U.S. securities and futures markets are regulated
through a combination of self-regulation (subject to federal oversight)
and direct federal regulation, the SROs also oversee compliance with
antimoney laundering laws and regulations. Two of the SROs-NASD and
NYSE-oversee registered broker-dealers. NFA oversees futures commission
merchants and introducing brokers in commodities.12 In addition to NFA, a
number of the futures commission merchants are overseen by futures
exchanges, including the New York Mercantile Exchange, CME, and CBOT.

  Developing Regulations for CIP and Section 314 That Applied to a Wide Range of
  Financial Institutions Was Difficult and Complex

Treasury and the federal financial regulators encountered numerous
challenges as they developed regulations to implement sections 314 and
326. Key challenges related to implementing section 326 included
developing regulations that could be applied consistently across a
financial industry that has diverse business models, customer
relationships, and financial products. In addition, many financial
institutions have arrangements with other institutions to process customer
transactions. These arrangements and the need to build in a risk-based
approach to customer identification created concerns among the regulators
and industry about reasonable levels of accountability for verifying the
identity of customers. Developing regulations for section 314 presented
practical problems on how to develop a process for information sharing
between law enforcement and industry and a process that allows financial
institutions to share information with each other.

12NFA also oversees commodity trading advisors and commodity pool
operators; although the Secretary of the Treasury has deferred application
of the anti-money laundering requirements to these financial institutions
for an unspecified period, Treasury has proposed rules that would require
commodity trading advisors and commodity pools to implement anti-money
laundering programs. See 68 Fed. Reg. 23640 (May 5, 2003) (commodity
trading advisors); 67 Fed. Reg. 60617 (September 26, 2002) (unregistered
investment companies, including commodity pools). Futures commission
merchants can be individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations,
and trusts that solicit or accept orders for the purchase or sale of any
commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any exchange
and that accept payment from or extend credit to those whose orders are
accepted. An introducing broker for commodities is a person engaged in
soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity
for future delivery on an exchange who does not accept any money,
securities or property to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or
contracts that result there from.

Development of the CIP Requirement Highlighted Difficulties in Applying
Requirements Consistently to a Wide Range of Financial Products and
Businesses

Treasury and the federal financial regulators had to resolve several
issues through an interagency process when developing the regulations for
CIP, such as defining "customer" and "account" for the purposes of the
regulations and determining how much flexibility to give firms in
verifying the identity of customers. Because the regulations for CIP would
apply to a diverse financial industry, FinCEN and the regulators formed a
working group and gathered information from industry officials about their
different business models and customer relationships. According to FinCEN
officials, the interagency process employed to issue joint regulations was
the first that included Treasury and the seven federal financial
regulators. Specifically, Treasury and the five banking regulators (FDIC,
Federal Reserve, NCUA, OCC, and OTS) jointly adopted a CIP rule covering
banks, thrifts, and credit unions.13 Treasury and SEC jointly adopted
separate rules for broker-dealers and mutual funds.14 Treasury and CFTC
jointly adopted a rule for futures commission merchants and introducing
brokers.15 As shown in figure 1, the rulemaking process took over a year
and a half to complete.

1331 C.F.R. S: 103.121. Although the substantive provisions of the four
joint CIP rules are codified in 31 C.F.R. part 103, subpart I - Anti-Money
Laundering Programs, each of the federal financial regulators concurrently
published a provision in its own regulations to cross-reference the final
rules in order to clarify the applicability of the final rules to the
financial institutions subject to their respective jurisdictions.

1431 C.F.R. S:S: 103.122 and 103.131.

1531 C.F.R. S: 103.123.

Figure 1: Key Dates in the Rulemaking Process for CIP

Rulemaking process

2001 2002 2003 Oct. July Sept.

                    Financial institutions expected to have

Notice of customer ID Inquiry program in place

May July Sept. Oct.

October 26, 2001: July 2002:

     USA PATRIOT Publication of Treasury's Act enacted. and regulators' joint
                                              notices of proposed rulemaking.

September 6, 2002:

Comment period closed. Treasury and regulators received approximately 500
comments in response to the proposed CIP rules.

May 9, 2003:

Treasury and regulators jointly adopted the final

CIP rules.

July 1, 2003: October 1, 2003:

Treasury published Compliance date for a Notice of Inquiry financial
institutions seeking comments subject to the on the rules: CIP rules. (a)
recordkeeping requirements and (b) types of identification documents.

September 25, 2003:

Treasury summarized the comments from its July 1, 2003, Notice of Inquiry
and made no changes to the final rules.

                                  Source: GAO.

Following the issuance of the joint notices of proposed rulemaking in July
2002, Treasury and the federal financial regulators collectively received
approximately 500 comments, many of which expressed concerns about the
types of accounts and customers that should be subject to CIP. For
instance, some comments questioned whether an account established as part
of an employee benefit plan should be subject to CIP regulations, the
extent to which the risk-based approach should be used, and the need for
Treasury and the federal financial regulators to be more specific about
the methods of verification. Other comments proposed that the entire
process be risk-based without any minimum requirements. Some comments also
addressed how financial institutions could rely on or share responsibility
with another institution for verifying the identity of a shared customer
account. This reliance aspect is important for some types of financial
institutions that have securities and futures products. For example, in
the securities industry, many brokers interact with customers (introducing
brokers) but rely on another broker for clearance, settlement, and custody
purposes (clearing firms). Typically under this arrangement the
introducing broker interacts with the customer by taking orders and making
recommendations and the clearing firm holds the customer assets. Treasury
and the regulators also considered how financial institutions

could verify customer identities for customers who open accounts by mail,
by phone, or over the Internet.

Treasury and the federal financial regulators ultimately established
minimum identification requirements and mandated that financial
institutions develop risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of
each customer to the extent reasonable and practicable. The verification
procedures included documentary and nondocumentary methods to cover the
variety of approaches customers use to open accounts. The final rules
published on May 9, 2003, provide a framework with minimum standards for
identifying customers, while allowing financial institutions flexibility
to design and implement CIPs according to risk-based procedures for
verifying identity based on their business lines, types of customers, and
methods of opening accounts. Figure 2 illustrates requirements for
identification and verification procedures.

Figure 2: Requirements for Customer Identification and Verification
Procedures

Source: GAO analysis of regulations for CIP.

In addition to establishing minimum identification standards and a
riskbased approach for verification procedures, the final rule requires
that financial institutions develop CIPs that include procedures for (1)
making and maintaining a record of information required to be obtained
from the customer at the time the account is opened and retaining the
information

for five years after the date the account is closed,16 (2) providing
notice to the customer that their identity will be verified, and (3)
determining whether a person appears on any list designated by Treasury
(in consultation with the federal financial regulators) as a federal
government list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist
organizations that must be checked by financial institutions as part of
the CIP requirement. Treasury has not designated a list for the CIP
requirement at this time.

The final rule also allows financial institutions to rely on another
financial institution to perform any procedures of its own CIP for
customers that the two financial institutions share provided that, among
other requirements, the financial institution that is being relied on
enter into a contract certifying annually to the relying financial
institution that it has implemented its own anti-money laundering program
and that it will perform the specified requirements of the relying
financial institution's CIP. The rule also requires that the financial
institution being relied on is regulated by a federal functional
regulator. The final rules stated that financial institutions were
expected to be in compliance with the final rules no later than October 1,
2003.

Treasury issued a Notice of Inquiry in July 2003 (see fig. 1)
approximately 2 months after the final CIP rules had been adopted,
soliciting additional comments about two aspects of the final CIP rules
that concerned some interested parties, including members of Congress and
law enforcement officials. The Notice of Inquiry sought additional
comments on (1) whether and under what circumstances financial
institutions should be required to retain photocopies of identification
documents relied on to verify customer identity and (2) whether there are
situations when the regulations should preclude reliance on certain forms
of foreign government-issued identification to verify customer identity.
Treasury received over 34,000 comments in response to the Notice of
Inquiry from a wide variety of individuals and entities, including members
of Congress, the Department of Justice, the financial services industry,
advocacy groups, and interested citizens.

Treasury did not make any changes to the final CIP rules for two reasons.
First, it concluded that requiring photocopies in all cases is not
consistent with the risk-based approach for CIP. In its official
disposition of comments

16Other records of information, such as documents used to verify a
customer's identity, obtained pursuant to a CIP must be retained for five
years after the record is made.

to the notice, Treasury said that the decision to make photocopies should
be at the discretion of the financial institution rather than an
across-theboard requirement. Second, Treasury decided that specifying
individual types of documents that cannot be relied upon to verify
customer identities did not make sense from a regulatory perspective
because the relative security and reliability of various identification
documents that are available is constantly changing. The comments received
in response to the Notice of Inquiry primarily related to encouraging
Treasury to take an official position on whether the Mexican consular
identification document, the Matricula Consular is a reliable document for
verifying identification.17 Treasury concluded that because the relative
security and reliability of identification documents are constantly
changing, any list of unacceptable documents would quickly become outdated
and may provide financial institutions with an unwarranted sense of
security concerning documents that do not appear on such a list.
Therefore, Treasury decided not to prescribe a specific list of documents
that are acceptable or not acceptable in the regulation, but rather
committed to providing financial institutions with information relating to
the security and reliability of identification cards.

Developing Section 314 When developing section 314 regulations, Treasury
(through FinCEN) had Regulations Required to determine the extent to which
financial institutions should share Balancing the Needs of Law information
about customers with law enforcement officials and with each

other. Treasury adopted final regulations in September 2002. Figure
3Enforcement and Industry shows the key dates in the rulemaking process
for section 314.

17In a 2004 report, we found that consular identification cards are issued
by some governments to help identify their citizens living in a foreign
country, but that federal agencies hold different and, in some cases,
conflicting views on the usage and acceptance of these cards and no
executive branch guidance is yet available. See U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Border Security: Consular Identification Cards
Accepted within United States, but Consistent Federal Guidance Needed,
GAO-04-881 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 2004).

Figure 3: Key Dates of the Rulemaking Process for Section 314 Rulemaking
process Moratorium FinCEN reinstates 314a information requests

2001 2002 2003 Oct. March April Sept. Nov. Feb.

October 26, 2001:

USA PATRIOT Act enacted.

March 4, 2002:

                FinCEN published for comment a notice of proposed rulemaking.

April 3, 2002:

Comment period ended. FinCEN received approximately 180 comments.

September 26, 2002:

                           FinCEN issued final rule.

November 4, 2002:

FinCEN sent first 314(a) information request throughout the U.S.

Source: GAO.

February 17, 2003:

FinCEN reinstated 314(a) information requests.

November 26, 2002:

To address implementation problems, FinCEN and regulators
issued a Joint Agency Notice announcing a brief moratorium on
314(a) information requests and compliance with existing requests.
During the moratorium, FinCEN, after discussions with relevant
federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies, revised the 314(a)
information request process to address logistical issues and to develop
additional guidance on the information request process.

For section 314(a), FinCEN implemented a process in which law enforcement
agencies provide information on potential suspects to FinCEN. FinCEN
distributes these 314(a) information requests across the country to
financial institutions that are required to search their accounts and
transactions to identify any matches.

The process was temporarily suspended in November 2002, based on feedback
from financial institutions that they were overwhelmed or confused by the
process. Some institutions did not know what to do with the information
requests, while others were not sure which accounts or transactions to
search. Following consultations with law enforcement and the federal
financial regulators to streamline the process, FinCEN resumed 314(a)
information requests in February 2003. FinCEN and industry officials
agreed that, since the moratorium, FinCEN has implemented a more
streamlined process that has improved the clarity and efficiency of 314(a)
information requests. Officials from FinCEN and law enforcement agencies
have also established procedures to vet requests sent by law enforcement
agencies to ensure that they are related to terrorist or significant money
laundering activities. (See fig. 4.) Before putting a name on the
information request list, FinCEN officials said that they follow up with
the requesting law enforcement agent to obtain more information to
determine whether the case merits the use of the 314(a) process and to

verify that the agent will be available to respond to any financial
institution that finds a match when the request goes out. FinCEN also
sends each law enforcement requester a feedback form on the usefulness of
the information obtained. For example, the feedback form asks if law
enforcement officials served grand jury subpoenas based on the information
obtained from the 314(a) process. In addition, law enforcement officials
said that they have taken steps to caution agents against overusing the
314(a) process, and that the 314(a) process is not meant to replace the
need for a subpoena or more rigorous investigation methods.

     Figure 4: The 314(a) Information Sharing Process after the Moratorium

Source: GAO.

FinCEN sends out the 314(a) information request list every 2 weeks. The
information requests include suspects related to terrorist cases and
significant money laundering investigations. FinCEN tries to limit the
number of subjects on the bi-weekly information request. The request
contains as much identifying information as possible, such as dates of
birth, social security numbers, and addresses as well as aliases so the

number of records that are to be searched for can be extensive.18
Financial institutions have 2 weeks to respond. Urgent requests can also
be distributed with shorter turnaround time when deemed necessary.

The rulemaking process for section 314(b) addressed the need to encourage
information sharing among financial institutions while still protecting
customers' right to privacy and established a mechanism for financial
institutions to satisfy the statutory notice requirement. Section 314(b)
of the PATRIOT Act allows financial institutions, upon providing notice to
Treasury, to share information regarding individuals, entities, and
countries suspected of possible terrorist or money laundering
activities.19 The final rule requires that to be protected by the safe
harbor from liability for sharing information pursuant to section 314(b),
financial institutions must comply with the procedures prescribed by the
rule, including providing notice annually to FinCEN of their intent to
share information with other institutions. The rule also requires that
prior to sharing information, a financial institution must verify that the
financial institution with which information will be shared has also filed
a notice with FinCEN. FinCEN determines that the notice requirement
sufficiently reminds financial institutions of their need to safeguard
information that is obtained using section 314(b).

18Effective March 1, 2005, FinCEN implemented a Web-based USA PATRIOT Act
Section 314(a) Secure Information Sharing System. The new system allows
for a streamlined, secure Web-enabled delivery of 314(a) information to
financial institutions and more efficient reporting of matches back to
FinCEN.

19Although there is no statutory requirement that regulations implementing
section 314(b) be adopted, FinCEN determined that such rules were needed
to specify the kinds of institutions that would be permitted to share
information and to clarify how such financial institutions could provide
the requisite notice of their intent to share information. The rules
adopted under section 314(b) apply to financial institutions that are
required to establish and maintain an anti-money laundering program, or
are treated as having satisfied the requirements of Treasury's anti-money
laundering program regulations. See 31 C.F.R. S: 103.110.

  Treasury and the Federal Financial Regulators Have Reached Out to the
  Financial Industry to Assist It in Implementing CIP and Section 314 Rules, but
  Industry Concerns Remain

Treasury and the federal financial regulators have taken several steps to
help the financial industry understand and comply with the CIP and 314
information sharing regulations; however, the need for agency coordination
has slowed the issuance of additional guidance. Industry officials said
that although the government's guidance has been helpful, it does not
completely address their questions and compliance concerns particularly
related to the CIP rule. The implementation of the 314(a) information
sharing process has highlighted the tension between law enforcement
officials' duty to protect sensitive information and the need for
information from law enforcement to help industry monitor, identify, and
report possible financial crimes, including terrorist financing and money
laundering. Finally, industry officials said that they appreciate the safe
harbor provided by 314(b), but some officials said distinguishing possible
money laundering and terrorist activities from other types of financial
crimes not covered by section 314(b), such as fraud, has been difficult.

Treasury and the Regulators Have Assisted Industry in Implementing CIP and
Section 314 Requirements, but Interagency Coordination Has Slowed Issuance
of Additional Guidance

Treasury and the federal financial regulators have sought to educate the
financial community to help it understand the new requirements, but the
need for interagency coordination has slowed regulators' issuance of
additional guidance. Regulators and SROs used established, formal channels
(such as Web site postings and existing regulatory memorandums
distribution channels) to distribute guidance to firms describing the
regulations, clarifying when the regulations would become effective, and
offering advice about implementation. Officials from the regulatory
agencies and SROs also informed firms of the regulations and addressed
practical issues during numerous industry-related conferences, conference
calls, and training sessions. Moreover, agency officials said that during
compliance exams conducted before and soon after the regulations became
effective, examiners clarified particular aspects and helped firms
establish compliant programs.

Treasury and the federal financial regulators have provided specific
guidance related to the CIP rule and section 314 in the form of responses
to "frequently asked questions" or "FAQs." In August and October 2003,
Treasury and SEC issued limited FAQ guidance related to mutual funds and
broker-dealers, respectively. In January 2004, Treasury and the banking
regulators jointly issued FAQ guidance that addressed several issues
related to CIP. Among other topics, the answers clarified the definitions
of a customer and an account in different situations and discussed how
firms should apply the rules to existing customers. In July 2004, Treasury
and

CFTC issued FAQ guidance concerning CIP that was similar to the banking
regulators' guidance.

FinCEN issued FAQs for the 314 information sharing regulations in February
2003. These FAQs were initially posted on FinCEN's public Web site but,
according to FinCEN officials, they were removed due to law enforcement
concerns that this guidance could give criminals an advantage. FinCEN
officials said they have now posted these FAQs to its secure Web site that
financial institutions access to obtain the 314(a) information requests
and will send the FAQs to a financial institution upon request.

According to FinCEN, because of the joint nature of the CIP rules, all of
the affected regulators and FinCEN must coordinate when issuing guidance
to assure consistency in the implementation of the regulations. Such
coordination has slowed the issuance of further guidance. Similar to the
challenges they encountered in the rulemaking process, the financial
regulators and FinCEN face continuing challenges in developing guidance
that applies to diverse types of financial products and businesses. FinCEN
and the federal financial regulators began developing a second series of
CIP FAQs pertaining primarily to banks in early 2004. Some officials told
us that this guidance has taken longer to finalize because of difficulties
reaching agreements on which questions to address and how to answer them.
FinCEN officials told us that although some of the officials had signed
off on the draft FAQs, agreement was not reached among two of the
regulators on one outstanding question until February 2005. FinCEN
officials told us that, although these are questions pertaining to CIPs,
some questions have broader policy implications for the affected agencies.
FinCEN released the draft for internal approval by the financial
regulators on March 25, 2005, and the final CIP FAQs were jointly issued
by Treasury, FinCEN, and the banking regulators on April 28, 2005.
Officials from CFTC and FinCEN told us that they hoped guidance in the
form of an FAQ addressing the CIP issue related to customers of executing
and carrying brokers would be released soon, but it has also taken some
time to finalize the guidance. SEC officials told us that they have been
waiting for the second set of banking FAQs and will then adapt the first
and second set of CIP FAQs for securities firms.

The industry officials we spoke with largely agreed that the regulators
have provided valuable information and services helping them to understand
the regulations. Some officials lauded the time and effort regulators have
taken

to inform firms of the new regulations and answer difficult, practical
questions.

Industry Officials Believe That More Guidance from FinCEN and Financial
Regulators Would Help Address Some CIP Implementation Challenges

Industry officials we met with said that while regulators' guidance has
been helpful, it does not address all of their questions and concerns,
thus making it difficult for them to know if they are in full compliance
with the requirements. Industry officials said that although their
institutions had customer identification procedures in place prior to the
PATRIOT Act, they revised their forms, processes, and systems to meet the
minimum CIP requirements. Many industry officials said that CIP
regulations have challenged them to organize and document their
identification procedures, create new forms and processes to notify
customers of the new procedures, and reconfigure systems in order to store
information required by the regulations for the specified period. Industry
officials also said that implementing CIP has improved the consistency of
customer identification procedures across different business lines in
their own institutions and should improve consistency across the various
financial sectors.

CIP FAQs that FinCEN and the federal financial regulators issued for bank,
securities, and futures firms in 2003 and 2004 responded to several of the
industry's implementation concerns. For example, the FAQs for banks
discussed two issues banks raised during the public comment period in the
rulemaking process-(1) the extent to which banks should verify existing
customers and (2) how banks may identify customers using nondocumentary
sources of identification information. The one CIP FAQ for securities
firms clarified when an intermediary will be deemed the customer for
purposes of the CIP rule when opening a domestic omnibus securities
account to execute transactions for the intermediary customers.

Despite the guidance, industry officials remain concerned about some
challenges they raised during the comment period and have additional
concerns. For example, industry officials said they are still uncertain
how examiners determine that firms have taken appropriate steps to verify
the identity of customers when the CIP regulations allow firms to take a
riskbased approach and give them the flexibility to tailor their
procedures for verifying customers' identities according to their
location, customers, and products. Industry officials believe that they
and their examiners may reasonably disagree on the risks posed by certain
customers and subsequently disagree about when to take extra steps to
verify the identity of the customers. The officials expressed concern that
examiners will sanction firms who differed with them, despite the fact
that the firms

followed what they believed were reasonable steps to determine the risk of
the customers and subsequently took reasonable steps to verify their
identity. For example, one industry representative told us that in a
recent exam an examiner questioned the firm's designation of high-risk
countries-the firm planned to take more stringent steps to verify the
identity of customers depending on the risk ranking of high-risk
countries. According to the industry official, the examiner thought that
two of the countries on the risk matrix should have been placed in a
higher risk category but did not provide a basis for believing that
certain countries should be higher on the firm's risk ranking.

Some industry officials also said that they were unsure how examiners
expected them to verify the identity of institutions and people when
reliable identification information is unavailable, such as for people
from countries where sources of identification may not be reliable. CIP
rules require that financial institutions collect a government
identification number for corporations as well as individuals. Some
industry officials said that a foreign government identification number
for institutions or corporations can be very difficult to verify and
therefore the collection of the identification number is virtually
worthless. Also, one of the documentary methods for verifying the identity
of a corporation is to obtain the articles of incorporation, but these
documents can also be difficult to use to verify identities for foreign
entities. Some securities industry officials told us that foreign
incorporation documents are difficult to obtain and sometimes impossible
because the country does not make this information available to the
public. Similarly, officials from mutual fund firms expressed uncertainty
concerning how examiners will assess their practices for verifying the
identity of some customers processed online or over the telephone. The
officials explained that they often use credit reports and other
nondocumentary sources to verify these types of customers, and such
sources are not always available for some customers, such as young
customers or some senior customers.

Additionally, some industry officials expressed uncertainty about the
reliance provision of the CIP rule. Specifically, industry officials said
that they did not know the scope of a reasonable reliance agreement and
which firm is liable for mistakes. Even after regulators issued guidance
on the reliance provision in the first series of CIP FAQs, some industry
officials said that they remain uncertain about the scope of reasonable
reliance agreements in some instances. Industry officials in the futures
industry told us that they hope that the federal government will provide
guidance on how the CIP requirement affects the relationship between
executing brokers

and carrying brokers in "give up" relationships.20 CFTC and NFA officials
said that the regulations suggest that for an executing broker to invoke
the reliance provision in give-up transactions, carrying brokers must
certify that they have verified the identity of each customer whose trades
are given up to the carrying broker, thus requiring numerous
verifications, which could overwhelm the daily operations of the firms
with CIP requirements. In February and March 2005, CFTC and FinCEN
officials told us that they were working to issue additional guidance
concerning these give-up relationships and they hoped it would be issued
shortly. In addition, some industry officials said that they avoid relying
on other firms because they did not know how examiners would determine
which firm will be responsible for mistakes. During the rulemaking
process, officials from the securities sector expressed this same concern.
Some industry officials told us that examiners did not fully understand
the reliance provision. The securities industry officials told us that the
reliance provision was meant to ensure that the CIP requirement did not
result in duplicative efforts. Because of these concerns, some firms may
not take advantage of the provision.

Industry Officials Faced Some Implementation Challenges and Question
Whether the 314(a) Information Sharing Process Improves Communication with
Law Enforcement

The implementation of the 314(a) information sharing process has created
some practical challenges and highlighted the tension between law
enforcement officials' duty to protect sensitive information and
industry's need for information useful in identifying and reporting
financial crimes, including terrorist financing and money laundering. One
challenge industry officials said they faced was their inability to
simultaneously search the multiple customer databases they are required to
search, which forces them to search numerous databases individually. Some
industry officials told us that they have dedicated significant staff
hours to conduct the searches, developed search programs specifically for
314(a) information requests, and hired third-party vendors to conduct the
searches.

20According to CFTC officials, the CIP rule (and other CFTC rules) place
responsibility for customer identification procedures on futures
commission merchants that are carrying brokers because they deal directly
with customers and have the systems and procedures for identifying
customers. However, a customer may elect to use one or more executing
futures commission merchants to place a given trade for a number of
reasons (e.g., the customer's carrying broker may not be a member of the
particular exchange on which the contract in question is listed for
trading). In this situation, the customer would need another futures
commission merchant-the executing broker-to conduct the trade (i.e., the
executing broker "gives up" the trade). Executing brokers have not
historically had to identify these types of customers.

Despite the attempts to lessen the burden of the 314(a) process, some
industry officials said that they have been disappointed with how federal
law enforcement agencies appear to be using the process. Industry
officials said that they expected law enforcement officials to request
information only for select, serious threats and primarily
terrorist-related activities; however, they questioned the significance of
some of the information requests they have received because requesting law
enforcement agents have not followed up matches by sending subpoena
requests or returning telephone calls concerning the matches. FinCEN and
law enforcement agency officials responded that they continue to refine
the process for vetting requests and preventing agents from overburdening
financial institutions with unnecessary requests.

Also, some industry officials asked why law enforcement officials could
not provide more information about cases involving their institutions, how
to treat particular suspicious customers, and profiles of terrorists and
other criminals. The industry officials said that such information would
help them to recognize and report a potential criminal or terrorist and
enable them to update their criteria for assessing the risk of individual
customers, thus strengthening due diligence systems and improving their
contributions to law enforcement officials' anti-money laundering and
anti-terrorism efforts. Law enforcement and FinCEN officials said that
although they greatly appreciate the information provided by firms via the
314(a) process, providing feedback to firms on particular cases can be a
challenge, particularly when cases involve sensitive information. In
August 2004, the FBI created a list of terrorist financing indicators to
assist financial institutions in identifying and reporting suspicious
activity that may relate to terrorism. FinCEN forwarded this information
to financial institutions through the 314(a) distribution channels.
Consistent with the statements of the law enforcement officials we spoke
with, the 9-11 Commission praised the benefits of the section 314(a)
information sharing process, but also expressed concerns about the extent
to which law enforcement should share sensitive law enforcement or
intelligence information. The 9-11 Commission noted that providing
financial institutions with information concerning ongoing investigations
opens up the possibility that the institutions may leak sensitive
information, compromise investigations, or violate the privacy rights of
suspects.

In response to the industry's request for more information concerning the
value of the 314(a) process, FinCEN periodically publishes 314(a) fact
sheets. These fact sheets provide industry with summary data on 314(a)
requests over a specific time period, including the law enforcement

agencies making requests and the number of search warrants, grand jury
subpoenas, and indictments attributable to information firms provide
through the 314(a) process. Regulators, industry officials, and law
enforcement officials also jointly publish semiannual Suspicious Activity
Report (SAR) Activity Reviews, which provide information on trends and
patterns in financial crimes and how industry's contributions through
reporting suspicious activity and responding to 314(a) requests have
helped investigations. Furthermore, as stated in its Fiscal Year 2006-2008
Strategic Plan, released in February 2005, FinCEN plans to seek faster and
more efficient technical channels for dialog between government and the
financial industry. For example, FinCEN officials told us that they hope
to use FinCEN's new secure information sharing system to provide financial
institutions additional feedback information.

Industry Officials Expressed Some Confusion about Types of Suspicious
Activity That Can Be Shared under Section 314(b)

Although industry officials said section 314(b) is a helpful tool and has
enabled them to share information in a new way, some officials said it is
not always easy to determine if the suspicious activity is money
laundering or terrorist activity or other financial crimes. As noted
earlier, section 314(b) of the PATRIOT Act provides a safe harbor for
financial institutions to protect them from liability for sharing
information only if it relates to individuals, entities, organizations,
and countries suspected of possible terrorist or money laundering
activities. Some industry officials stated that sometimes it is difficult
to distinguish fraudulent activity from possible money laundering, thus
making it hard to determine if a firm can share information about that
activity with other firms participating in the 314(b) network. As a
consequence, some financial institutions may be reluctant to use the
314(b) process.

On the positive side, industry officials who had used the process said
that the 314(b) provision has allowed firms to share useful information
regarding potential money laundering or terrorist activities with other
institutions that they previously had little or no interaction with. The
officials said that such sharing has helped them efficiently collect
otherwise unattainable information about customers, enabling their firms
to practice better due diligence. Furthermore, some officials from the
banking industry said the 314(b) safe harbor provision has encouraged them
to give and receive information that uncovers diverse criminal activities
because money laundering is a predicate to a wide variety of crimes.

  Financial Regulators and SROs Have Updated Examination Guidance and Trained
  Examiners to Evaluate Compliance with CIP and Section 314

Since February 1 and October 1, 2003-when financial institutions were to
be in compliance with regulations for sections 314 and CIP of the PATRIOT
Act, respectively-banking, securities, and futures regulators and SROs
issued examination guidance and trained examiners to assess firms for
compliance with both provisions. The five banking regulators jointly
issued guidance for CIP and section 314. The SEC and the securities SROs
we reviewed issued final guidance for both provisions individually, and
the futures SROs we reviewed issued final guidance jointly in February
2004 through the Joint Audit Committee-a consortium of futures exchanges.
NFA updated and issued its guidance by October 2003 for both provisions.
All federal financial regulators and SROs continue to update staff on
changes to examination procedures and have trained examiners to assess
firms for compliance with CIP and section 314.

All Financial Regulators and SROs Have Issued Final Guidance and
Procedures for CIP and Section 314 and Used a Variety of Methods to
Communicate Changes to Their Staff

The banking regulators jointly issued guidance and procedures for section
314 on October 20, 2003, and for CIP on July 28, 2004. Although banking
regulators did not issue final examination guidance for CIPs until several
months after the regulations took effect, examiners were assessing firms'
CIPs using draft or interim guidance beginning in October 2003. SEC issued
final guidance and procedures for broker-dealers in September 2003 and
April 2002 for mutual funds.21 SEC's guidance for mutual fund examination
does not address examination for compliance with section 314(a) requests
to mutual funds. SEC officials told us that FinCEN is currently not
including mutual funds in the 314(a) process.22 Also, SEC officials said
that

21According to the timeline presented in figure 1 in this report, SEC's
mutual fund exam guidance was updated to include CIP before Treasury
issued the notice of proposed rulemaking for section 326 in July 2002.
When we asked SEC to explain the discrepancy, an SEC official said that
when they began drafting anti-money laundering exam guidance, SEC
representatives were already in contact, and consulting, with Treasury
about the new antimoney laundering requirements in the PATRIOT Act. As a
result, they were aware that the CIP requirement would be applied to
funds. As a result, SEC decided to include guidance, in general terms, for
the need for mutual funds to have in place, or start developing, programs
to verify the identity of customers.

22FinCEN said it has limited the scope of financial institutions subject
to 314(a) requests primarily to securities broker-dealers, commodity
futures commission merchants, and depository institutions primarily to
ensure the effective and orderly implementation of the system. Unlike
mutual funds, these types of institutions have an existing federal
financial regulator that maintains point of contact information. FinCEN
has stated that it will consider expanding the universe of financial
institutions that receive 314(a) requests in the future if it is feasible
and appropriate.

because mutual fund shares are typically purchased through a principal
underwriter, which is a registered broker-dealer, most mutual fund
accounts would likely be covered by broker-dealers who receive 314(a)
information requests.

Development of examination guidance for all of the federal financial
regulators and the SROs continues to evolve as events change the
requirements financial institutions must adhere to in order to maintain
sound anti-money laundering programs. FinCEN is working to provide support
to regulators that have been delegated compliance examination
responsibilities for financial institutions and has become more involved
in helping regulators develop examination guidance and best practices. For
example, federal banking regulators, working on an interagency basis
through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) and
with FinCEN, have drafted joint examination guidance that was being field
tested as of March 2005. The targeted issue date for this guidance is June
30, 2005.23 Banking agency officials told us that this is the first time
they have developed joint anti-money laundering guidance and procedures
and that they are more comprehensive than any they have issued in the
past. As part of this effort, the banking regulators plan to distribute
the new examination manual to examiners on a CD that will also include the
most current anti-money laundering examination guidance and procedures.
SEC officials told us that they also plan to revise the examination
guidance and procedures for broker-dealers and mutual funds based on
lessons learned from examinations conducted last year. FinCEN officials
told us they intend to also work jointly with SEC and CFTC to coordinate
efforts among securities and futures regulators and work together on new
or revised guidance and procedures. However, FinCEN officials told us that
they have not been involved with SEC and CFTC in developing examination
guidance to date and they are still in the process of establishing MOUs
with the two regulators.24

23The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform
principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of
financial institutions. FFIEC was established on March 10, 1979, pursuant
to title X of the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate
Control Act of 1978 (FIR), PL 95-630. OCC, OTS, the Federal Reserve, FDIC,
and NCUA constitute the FFIEC.

24According to a recent Department of the Treasury Office of the Inspector
General report that reviewed FinCEN's Office of Compliance, the MOU with
SEC has been delayed because of fundamental differences.

All of the SROs in our review issued final examination guidance and
procedures for the CIP rule and section 314 of the PATRIOT Act. The
securities SROs issued final examination guidance for both provisions by
October 2003. However, NASD and NYSE began examining firms for compliance
with section 314 as early as October 2002 and January 2003, respectively.
The futures exchanges jointly issued final guidance for both provisions in
February 2004 through a consortium of futures exchanges called the Joint
Audit Committee.25 The CFTC, which performs regulatory oversight of the
Joint Audit Committee, conducts an annual review of all Joint Audit
Committee programs. The anti-money laundering program used by the Joint
Audit Committee is among the programs reviewed annually by the CFTC. CME
and CBOT had begun assessing firms for account verification, which closely
resembles the CIP requirement, by May 2002. NFA updated its guidance to
reflect the CIP requirement in October 2003 and April 2003 for section 314
and immediately began assessing firms for compliance with both provisions.
NFA officials said they expect to issue revised examination guidance in
2005 for section 326 to address whether, and under what circumstances, an
executing broker in a give-up transaction is required to apply its CIP to
the give-up customer.26

The federal financial regulators and the SROs included in our review told
us they have updated staff about changes to examination guidance and
procedures using a variety of techniques including teleconferences,
monthly or biannual staff meetings, interagency bulletins, email
notifications, and training sessions. For example, banking and securities
regulators including the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, SEC, and NASD use
teleconferences that are broadcast to headquarters and district offices to
update staff on changes to examination guidance, post updates on the
organization's Intranet, or use biannual and monthly staff meetings. CFTC
and the futures SROs including, CBOT, CME, and NFA update staff through
monthly staff meetings and email. NCUA and NYSE send emails to staff that
outline or highlight major changes to examination guidance. The

25The Joint Audit Committee is a representative committee of U.S. futures
exchanges and regulatory organizations. The committee issues guidance used
for futures commission merchants' compliance audits, provides industry
updates, and serves as a forum for futures regulators and exchanges to
address issues in the commodity and futures industry.

26As noted earlier in this report, give-up relationships occur between
carrying brokers and executing brokers when the customer of a carrying
broker elects to use an executing broker to place a given trade.

banking regulators also issue agencywide regulatory bulletins and letters
to update examiners.

Financial Regulators and SROs Updated Their Training Program and Have
Begun to Train Examiners to Evaluate Financial Institutions for Compliance
with the CIP Requirement and Section 314

Banking Regulators Use Formal Training Courses and FFIEC to Provide Staff
Training

All federal financial regulators and SROs in our review updated their
antimoney laundering training to include CIP and section 314. The federal
financial regulators and SROs began including CIP and section 314 in
training for anti-money laundering examination staff between January 2002
and June 2003. Banking and securities regulators use formal training
courses that are both instructor-led and computer-based and industry
experts to train staff administering anti-money laundering examinations.
Banking regulators also send examiners to training offered by FFIEC.
Training at most futures SROs we interviewed is more informal and occurs
mostly on the job due to the relatively small examination staffs at these
organizations. However, NFA and CFTC offer instructor-led training.

All of the federal banking regulators provide instructor-led courses in
antimoney laundering and Web-based training. This training introduces BSA
and PATRIOT Act requirements and includes standard presentations and
theoretical as well as hands-on training. Their anti-money laundering
training curriculum includes instruction in various examination techniques
designed to help examiners recognize potential money laundering risks
confronting financial institutions and to learn procedures for assessing
the soundness of an institution's anti-money laundering program. The
federal banking regulators also send staff to conferences sponsored by
trade associations that offer multiday focused courses and provide
informal resources for self-training such as subscriptions to online
newsletters.

However, each banking regulator approaches training differently. For
example, OTS and NCUA require all new staff to attend a basic training
course in anti-money laundering. According to OTS officials, regional
conference training, which is attended primarily by examiners, is an
important part of bringing examiners up to speed on anti-money laundering
examination procedures. NCUA also uses regional conferences to train large
numbers of its examination staff. For example, in 2002, NCUA used regional
conferences to provide training on sections 314 and 326 of the PATRIOT Act
to all examination staff.

FDIC and the Federal Reserve both have examiners that are anti-money
laundering specialists who serve as a training resource to other
examiners. Both agencies train examiners who are primarily responsible for
conducting anti-money laundering examinations. At the Federal Reserve,

anti-money laundering examination specialists interact on a daily basis
with examination staff engaged in anti-money laundering examinations to
offer case-specific guidance regarding the requirements. The Federal
Reserve also provides on-site examiner training at the individual Reserve
Banks, which emphasizes requirements under section 314 and 326 of the
PATRIOT Act as warranted. Similar to the Federal Reserve, FDIC uses staff
experienced in conducting anti-money laundering examinations as a resource
for examiners. Currently, FDIC has 321 anti-money laundering specialists
who serve as a resource and as trainers for other examiners. However, FDIC
recently trained every examiner on staff, approximately 1,721 as of 2004,
in anti-money laundering requirements. In addition, many of its
supervisory and legal professionals are pursuing anti-money laundering
specialist certifications. OCC has four different training schools, which
all provide live, instructor-led training in anti-money laundering
requirements. Finally, in an effort to build up staff with anti-money
laundering expertise, OCC has a formal on-the-job training program for
anti-money laundering and finances certifications in anti-money laundering
examination for some of its examiners.

Banking regulators also send examiners to FFIEC's interagency anti-money
laundering training workshops. We were able to attend one of these
workshops and observed that the course covered the CIP requirement and
section 314, in addition to other anti-money laundering requirements. The
course included lectures by experienced examiners, presentations by FBI
and Internal Revenue Service officials, reading materials, and case study
exercises. Many of the case study exercises demonstrated how to identify
suspicious transactions and how transaction testing could reveal
weaknesses in a financial institution's anti-money laundering program.27
Table 1 provides additional information about training at each of the
banking regulators.

27Transaction testing is used to validate examiners' judgment on the
reliability of an institution's procedures and internal controls. One form
of transaction testing is the comparison of day-to-day practices to the
requirements of policies and procedures (to assess compliance with
internal systems). This form of testing can reveal whether an institution
with sound written procedures has actually incorporated those procedures
into its operations.

        Table 1: Banking Regulators Anti-Money Laundering Training-2004

Regulator Training description

OCC	OCC offers instructor-led classroom anti-money laundering training for
its examiners at its Consumer Compliance: Basic, Anti-Money Laundering and
Terrorist Financing, FinCEN Database Training, and Bank Supervision
Schools. As part of OCC's entry-level training, examiners complete 1 week
of classroom training and one week of course preparation in the Consumer
Compliance: Basic School that includes BSA modules.

In 2004, 49 examiners attended the Consumer Compliance: Basic School, 114
attended the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing School, 45
attended the FinCEN Database Training School, and 62 attended the Bank
Supervision School.

In addition to formal course offerings, OCC periodically provides training
in the form of agencywide teleconferences and it finances the industry
Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist certification for some of its
examiners.

OTS	OTS requires all examiners administering anti-money laundering
examinations to complete 3 weeks of classroom training courses called
"Compliance I" and "Compliance II" that includes modules on BSA and the
PATRIOT Act.

In addition to formal course offerings, OTS provides Web-based anti-money
laundering training. In 2004, 463 examiners were trained in anti-money
laundering requirements.

NCUA	All new examination staff are required to complete a year-long
training curriculum that includes instructor-led training classes and
on-the-job training in anti-money laundering.

Seasoned examiners are trained on an on-going basis using a combination of
instructor-led training sessions and regional conferences. In 2004, NCUA
recorded 957 participants in training sessions in anti-money laundering
requirements and had 551 examiners on staff. This means that each examiner
at NCUA participated in approximately two training sessions in anti-money
laundering requirements in 2004.

FDIC	FDIC examiners receive anti-money laundering training in their formal
assistant examiner school and formal commissioned examiner school. In
2004, 71 examiners received anti-money laundering training in assistant
examiner school and 40 examiners received training in the commissioned
examiner school.

As of 2004, FDIC trained every examiner on staff (1,721) in anti-money
laundering requirements. To meet this requirement, FDIC established a
curriculum comprised of several Web-based components. The components are a
combination of externally provided courseware, internally developed
presentations, and exercises designed to strengthen examiners' knowledge
of topics covered.

Specialized anti-money laundering training has included outside seminars
and conferences, such as industrysponsored events and regulatory
conferences. FDIC also conducts training during examinations. This
training is targeted to the individual examiner and addresses the unique
business lines and practices at the bank being examined.

Federal Reserve	The Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Section interacts on
a daily basis with the examination staff engaged in anti-money laundering
examinations at the 12 reserve banks to offer case-specific guidance
regarding anti-money laundering requirements.

In 2004, the Federal Reserve trained 192 anti-money laundering examination
specialists.

As part of the Federal Reserve's entry-level training, examiners are
required to complete an anti-money laundering online training course.

Source: OCC, OTS, NCUA, FDIC, and Federal Reserve.

Securities Regulators Provide Training to Staff via Formal Instructor-Led
Classes and Also Use Industry Experts

Similar to the banking regulators, the securities regulators and SROs also
provide formal classroom instruction in anti-money laundering review and
some Web-based training, but their approaches differ. SEC provides
training to more seasoned staff in anti-money laundering while anti-money
laundering training is available to all staff at the securities SROs.
However, SEC and NASD are beginning to tailor training in anti-money
laundering review for newer staff. For example, beginning in 2005, SEC's
training for new examiners will include an anti-money laundering workshop.
According to SEC, this effort responds to the increasing importance of
antimoney laundering issues and serves to alert less experienced examiners
to SEC's new coordination efforts with FinCEN. Similarly, NASD has
recently enhanced its new examiner training program through the
implementation of a formal classroom training program. As part of this
6-week course, participants will go through 2 full days of training
devoted to anti-money laundering requirements, including the CIP
requirement and section 314 of the PATRIOT Act. NYSE provides training
using a combination of internal and industry experts. Its training program
includes several sessions on antimoney laundering and is administered by
both internal employees who have an extensive knowledge of the area and
outside experts from law and accounting firms.

Securities regulators also coordinate with each other to provide joint
training for their examiners. In February 2005, SEC, NASD, and NYSE
prepared a 2-day training session devoted to anti-money laundering
requirements. This training included presentations from FBI, FinCEN,
industry experts, and officials from each of the three securities
regulators. The SROs also work together to provide training about timely
and relevant examination and compliance topics. According to NASD and NYSE
officials we interviewed, the SROs periodically prepare joint training
sessions, which cover topics such as anti-money laundering requirements.
Table 2 provides additional information about training at SEC and the
securities SROs.

       Table 2: Securities Regulators Anti-Money Laundering Training-2004

                                   Regulator/
                            SRO Training description

SEC	Formal instructor-led training is provided in two different
curriculums called "Phase II" and "Phase III." Training is geared toward
more seasoned and mid-level staff. In 2004, SEC trained 237 of these staff
in anti-money laundering requirements.

SEC's Joint Regulatory Training Program, which is coordinated with NYSE
and NASD, brings exam staff from all three regulators together to discuss
and learn about regulatory issues in the securities industry including
antimoney laundering requirements.

NASD	Most training is available online and there is also significant
formal classroom training. NASD also sponsors symposiums and seminars on
anti-money laundering requirements for broker-dealer examinations.

As of October 25, 2004, new or inexperienced examination staffs can
participate in a 6-week course through NASD's Examiner University, which
devotes 2 days to anti-money laundering requirements.

NYSE	Formal instructor-led training on anti-money laundering is part of
the exchange's ongoing "Regulatory Training Program," which uses internal
and external speakers such as industry experts to present information to
staff on important anti-money laundering issues as they relate to
examination and enforcement.

Source: SEC, NASD and NYSE.

Futures SROs Provide Instructor-Futures SRO officials at CBOT and CME told
us that anti-money laundering

Led and On-the-Job Training	training was conducted primarily on the job
because these organizations have relatively small examination staffs.
According to officials at these organizations, more seasoned, senior staff
is responsible for training new staff on how to conduct anti-money
laundering reviews. NFA also provides on-the-job training; however, all
examiners are required to attend formal training in anti-money laundering
such as instructor-led training sessions and technical roundtables on
various anti-money laundering issues. In June and July 2004, the NFA's
compliance department conducted two technical roundtables, which focused
primarily on CIP requirements. In addition to in-house training, NFA also
hosts outside agencies, such as FinCEN, to make presentations on relevant
and timely issued related to anti-money laundering requirements. NFA
invites other futures SROs including CME and CBOT to most of their
training sessions. According to officials at all of the futures SROs,
on-the-job and formal, classroom training for examination staff on the CIP
requirement and section 314 started as early as May 2002. The CFTC also
provides in-house training opportunities for its entire staff, which
includes examiners who conduct oversight

examinations of SROs. The training covers all aspects of the anti-money
laundering regulatory requirements applicable to futures firms.

  Examinations and Enforcement Actions Highlight Progress and Difficulties in
  Overseeing Compliance with the CIP Requirement and Section 314

The federal financial regulators and SROs responsible for examining
financial institutions' compliance with anti-money laundering laws and
regulations have conducted examinations that cover compliance with, and
have taken enforcement actions concerning, violations of both the CIP
requirement and section 314 and its corresponding regulations, but
coverage of these requirements varied in the examinations we reviewed.
Most of the examinations in our sample assessed whether financial
institutions had developed CIPs and procedures for complying with the
regulations implementing section 314(a), but specific aspects of the
procedures reviewed were not always documented. Some examinations
highlighted the difficulties examiners and financial institutions have
encountered in understanding CIP requirements. Compliance with section
314(b) and the implementing regulations was not routinely assessed in part
because information sharing under 314(b) is voluntary. The regulators and
SROs used informal actions to address the deficiencies or apparent
violations identified in the examinations in our sample. Since the
regulations became effective, some of the regulators have also taken
formal enforcement actions that include violations of the CIP requirement
and the regulations adopted under section 314(a). Finally, in conducting
our work for this objective, we encountered difficulties in obtaining the
information on examinations and violations from two of the regulators that
revealed weaknesses in their processes for tracking anti-money laundering
compliance.

Most Examinations in Our Sample Reviewed CIP, but Coverage of Certain
Aspects Varied

As shown in table 3, about 95 percent of the examinations in our sample
(168 of 176) documented some type of review of financial institutions' CIP
procedures. However, coverage varied when we looked for (1) evidence that
the examiner reviewed CIP and (2) documentation of specific aspects of the
examiners' reviews, such as reviewing the financial institution's methods
of verifying customers' identities or testing the CIP procedures. When we
reviewed the examinations for coverage of the CIP requirement, we
specifically looked for documentation that the examiner assessed whether
(1) the financial institution had developed a CIP and written procedures
for CIP; (2) the CIP procedures included collecting appropriate customer
information including the minimum requirements, such as date of birth for
individuals; (3) the CIP procedures included verifying customer

information using documentary or nondocumentary methods; (4) the financial
institution was using risk-based procedures for verification, such as
determining how much information to verify depending on its assessment of
the risk of the customer or type of account or collecting additional
information; and (5) the CIP had been adequately implemented by testing a
sample of accounts.

Generally, we saw documentation showing that examiners reviewed the
financial institution's written CIP procedures. Most examinations in our
sample had evidence that the review included assessing written procedures
for CIP (157 of 176 or 89 percent), and the procedures included
appropriate customer identification information (144 of 176 or 82 percent)
and methods of verification (143 of 176 or 81 percent). Fewer
examinations- approximately 56 percent (99 of 176)-assessed whether the
financial institution was using a risk-based approach. Our review leads us
to believe that the risk-based aspect of CIP is an area that could be
difficult for both financial institutions and examiners to interpret
consistently, because determining the level of risk of a customer or
account can be difficult and depends on several factors, such as the
customer's line of business, the process used to open the account, and
whether the customer is in the United States or overseas.

Because it can be difficult to determine the customer's risk level, it is
not surprising that some examiners would focus on reviewing the minimum
requirements, such as the requirements to collect minimum information on
customers. OCC officials told us that they developed some internal
guidance to assist OCC examiners in understanding the risk-based aspect of
CIP early in 2004 because some examiners were confused about it. This
guidance explained that limited identification and verification procedures
may be appropriate for local residents and businesses, but enhanced
procedures may be needed for nonlocal customers, non face-to-face
customers (such as customers who conduct transactions by mail, telephone,
and Internet), and high-risk accounts (such as private investment
corporations, offshore trusts, and foreign customers). The guidance also
provided examples of types of enhanced verification procedures, such as
customer callbacks, credit verification, and on-site visits that could be
used to verify the identity of higher-risk customers. Finally, the
guidance stated that for most banks a single set of procedures for
verifying the identity of customers would not be adequate. FDIC had also
incorporated some examples in examination guidance updated in December
2004 that included examples of how CIP procedures may differ depending on
the risk of the customer or type of account. One example in

FDIC's guidance explained when a bank may want to obtain more information
on a business or company. The guidance said that although obtaining
information on signatories, beneficiaries, principals, and guarantors is
not a minimum requirement for CIPs, in the case of opening an account for
a relatively new or unknown firm, it would be in the bank's interest to
obtain and verify a greater volume of information on signatories and other
individuals with control or authority over the firm's account. It is
important that examiners determine whether financial institutions have
developed risk-based procedures in addition to developing procedures that
meet the minimum requirements, because (1) the regulations require that
financial institutions develop risk-based procedures and (2) the
risk-based procedures allow for more rigorous verification procedures on
those types of customers thought to be more at risk of engaging in money
laundering or terrorist activities.

Table 3: Coverage of CIP in Our Sample of Examinations Conducted between
October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004

Number of examinations Evidence that CIP was Regulator or SRO in sample
generally reviewed Banking

FDIC 20

Federal Reserve 20

NCUA 20

OCC 20

OTS 16

Securities

SEC-Broker-Dealers 11

SEC-Mutual Funds 6

NASD 20

NYSE 21

Futures

                           NFA                   18                        18 
                          CBOT                    2                         2 
                           CME                    2                         2 
                         Total                  176                 168 (95%) 

                  Source: GAO analysis of examination sample.

The results of our review of examinations showed considerable variation
when we looked for documentation showing whether the examiner tested CIP
procedures. We found that only about 43 percent (75 out of 176)
examinations tested procedures, in part because our review looked at
examinations during the early implementation phase and the examination
guidance issued by some regulators does not require that they test
procedures. Federal Reserve and FDIC officials said that during the early
phase of implementation examiners may have focused on reviewing the
procedures with the intent of testing procedures in the next examination
cycle. SEC officials said that since many of their broker-dealer
examinations that we reviewed were oversight examinations of examinations
conducted by NASD or NYSE, SEC examiners would not always conduct testing.
Officials from NASD and NYSE told us that some of the smaller
broker-dealers may not have opened any new accounts between October 1,
2003, and the time of the examination and, therefore, the examiner would
not have tested accounts. NYSE officials also said that CIP was not
reviewed in one examination in our sample because the examiner determined
that the firm did not have any customers and did not interact with the
public.

The regulators and SROs varied in their examiner guidance for testing
procedures. The banking regulators use a risk-based approach to their
examinations that determines what procedures are performed. Under this
risk-based approach to examinations, the examiners first determine whether
the financial institution has a strong compliance program and a history of
compliance and then tailors the examination procedures based on this risk
assessment and review of past examinations. For example, Federal Reserve
officials explained that an examiner's review of the independent testing
of an institution's anti-money laundering procedures may reduce the need
for the examiner to also test certain procedures.28 When the banking
regulators issued their joint examination guidance and procedures for CIP
in July 2004, the guidance directed examiners to determine whether and to
what extent to test CIP procedures based on a risk assessment, prior
examination reports, and a review of the bank's audit findings. Although
the SEC examination procedures for broker-dealers that

28Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act requires that financial institutions
have an independent audit function to test its anti-money laundering
program. Therefore, examiners would typically review this independent
testing and such testing could cover CIP since financial institutions that
are subject to both the anti-money laundering program requirement and the
CIP requirement must include their CIP as part of their anti-money
laundering program.

we reviewed did not include procedures for testing, an SEC official told
us that the initial request letters sent to institutions include a request
for customer account information so that examiners can test those accounts
for CIP compliance. SEC's procedures that we reviewed for mutual funds
included procedures for sampling accounts and testing CIP procedures for
examinations of funds' transfer agents that maintain customer account
information.29 NASD and NYSE have instructions that include sampling
accounts to determine whether the financial institution's CIP procedures
are being implemented properly. The examination procedures used by NFA and
the futures exchanges also include procedures to test the CIP procedures
against a sample of high-risk accounts.

We also looked to see if examiners conducted any testing of high-risk
accounts because the results of such testing would provide a clearer
indicator of whether the financial institution was exercising more due
diligence on riskier accounts.30 We saw evidence that examiners tested a
sample of high-risk accounts for CIP compliance in 8 of 176 of the
examinations. Several regulatory officials told us that the institutions
in our sample may not have had high-risk accounts. For example, many of
the NFA examinations included documentation saying that the institution
did not have any high-risk accounts and therefore a sample of such
accounts were not tested. Also, NCUA and OTS officials said that the
probability that the institutions they regulate would have high-risk
accounts was small.

Although most of the examinations had documentation that the examiner had
reviewed CIP, the documentation, such as the examination report or a
summary written by an examiner, did not always specify how the review was
conducted.31 Therefore, some of the variation in the results from our
examination review may also be due to differences in the way examiners
document their work. We observed a variety of methods for documenting

29Transfer agents are not subject to a CIP requirement unless they are a
bank or a brokerdealer, although many of them perform CIP requirements as
a service to their affiliated mutual funds and broker-dealers.

30According to the CIP examination procedures issued by the banking
regulators, high-risk accounts may include, but are not limited to,
foreign private banking and trust accounts, offshore accounts, and
out-of-area and non face-to-face accounts.

31In determining whether the examination documented a review of CIP and
section 314, we reviewed examination reports, written summaries of
examination findings, questionnaires or worksheets used by examiners to
record their work, and workpapers that may include copies of the financial
institution's procedures, internal audits, records of transaction testing,
and memorandums.

examination procedures that were conducted and examination results. Some
of the federal financial regulators and SROs used a system of recording
the completion of examination procedures, such as a questionnaire or
worksheet, which generally made it easy to follow what the examiner had
done but did not always include the same aspects that we were reviewing.
For example, NCUA examiners document their examinations using a
questionnaire. However, this questionnaire does not ask the examiner to
document whether he or she tested CIP procedures. In the one instance in
which we saw documentation of testing by NCUA, the NCUA examiner had
documented a deficiency in the credit union's CIP procedures based on
looking at a sample of accounts. An FDIC official told us that examiners
may not document that they tested procedures unless it showed a
deficiency. Some examiners documented their review by making notes on
copies of the financial institution's procedures. Finally, some
examinations, such as a few of the examinations conducted by the Federal
Reserve and OCC, used memorandums that discussed the findings of the
examination. However, the memorandums may not have specified all of the
aspects of CIP that were reviewed. In addition, OCC officials told us that
OCC does not require examiners to document every procedure that they
complete or what they do not do in an examination.

The Results of Our Examination Review Highlighted Some Difficulties in
Understanding CIP Requirements

CIP and Other Procedures That Require Customer Identification

Our review of some of the examinations in the sample revealed that
examiners and financial institutions may not always understand the
requirements for CIP or interpret them in the same way. The aspects of CIP
that raised questions about whether examiners or financial institutions
understand them are (1) the differences between CIP and know-yourcustomer
procedures; (2) the differences between the requirements to check
government lists for CIP versus other government lists such as OFAC; and
(3) the extent to which a financial institution performs CIP procedures
for existing customers. Some confusion or lack of understanding is to be
expected during the early phases of implementing new requirements.
However, these differences in understanding have resulted in
inconsistencies in the examination process and may have created further
confusion and misunderstandings.

A potential challenge to assessing compliance with CIP are the
similarities among CIP requirements and other procedures that require
customer identification for anti-money laundering purposes, including what
has been called "know-your-customer" or "customer due diligence" (CDD)
procedures. Also, although not an issue in the examinations we reviewed,
section 312 of the PATRIOT Act adds another customer due diligence

requirement and could lead to misunderstandings about appropriate due
diligence. Section 312 requires appropriate, specific and, where
necessary, enhanced, due diligence for correspondent accounts and private
banking accounts established in the United States for non-U.S. persons.32
FinCEN adopted an interim final rule for section 312 on July 23, 2002. In
the interim rule, FinCEN noted that the requirements of this provision
placed on financial institutions are significant and therefore, additional
time was necessary to consider what is appropriate for the final rule.

As shown in table 4, CIP, know-your-customer procedures, and section 312
have some similarities. All three require some level of collecting
customer identification information and taking steps to verify that
information and the risk-based aspect of CIP could overlap or duplicate
know-yourcustomer procedures and section 312 requirements. However,
know-yourcustomer procedures typically require more information than CIP.
According to the 1997 BSA examination manual issued by the Federal
Reserve, a know-your-customer policy begins with obtaining identification
information and taking steps to verify information-similar procedures to
CIP. However, know-your-customer procedures also include obtaining
information on the source of funds used to open an account and determining
whether to obtain information on beneficial owners of certain types of
accounts such as trusts. One goal of know-your-customer procedures is to
collect sufficient information so that the financial institution knows
what to expect in terms of customer account activity so that it can
adequately monitor for unusual or suspicious activities.

32U.S.C. S: 5318(i).

Table 4: Anti-Money Laundering Policies That Depend on Procedures to
Verify Customer Identities

Anti-Money laundering
policy Description of the procedures Rationale for procedures

                                                                   Collecting 
      Customer      o  Minimum requirements include            identification 
Identification            customer name,                   information and 
                                                                    verifying 
                   date of birth, physical address,   customers' identities   
    Program (CIP)  and government-                    make it more difficult  
                                                      for                     
                                                         money launderers and 
                           issued ID number.           other criminals to use 
                                                                          the 
                   o  Identification verification     U.S. financial system   
                   procedures are risk-based.         and should provide      
                                                      useful                  
                                                      information to law      
                                                      enforcement if the      
                                                      customer                
                                                      becomes a suspect in an 
                                                          investigation.      

Know-Your-Customer  o  Identification information is collected, but there
are Information on a customer's identity and expected no minimum
requirements. transactions enables the institution to effectively

o  Customer information usually includes source of monitor for suspicious
transactions and comply with funds and information on beneficial owners of
requirements to report suspicious activity reports. certain accounts.

o  Procedures include taking steps to verify the identity of the customer.

Due Diligence for Private  o  Minimum requirements include identifying the
Due diligence procedures are intended to guard Banking Accounts of nominal
and beneficial owners of, and the source of against money laundering and
enable the financial Non-U.S. Personsa funds deposited into such an
account. institution to report any suspicious transactions

o  Enhanced scrutiny of accounts held by or on behalf related to types of
accounts that have been known of a senior foreign political figure or any
immediate to be used for money laundering. family member or close
associate.

o  Procedures are risk-based.

Source: GAO analysis.

aSection 312 requires that banks also conduct due diligence for foreign
correspondent accounts whereas the private banking requirement applies to
banks and broker-dealers. For the purpose of illustrating how the
different rules' requirements are similar without becoming too
complicated, we are only showing the requirement for private banking
accounts of non-U.S. persons.

In 6 examinations in our sample of 176, we found evidence that examiners
were confusing know-your-customer procedures with CIP. For example, in 1
examination, the examiner documented a review of CIP but the documentation
included a copy of the financial institution's know-yourcustomer
procedures that had been in place since 1997 and had not been updated to
include the minimum identification standards and other CIP requirements,
such as recordkeeping procedures. As a consequence, this institution may
be doing less than what CIP requires. In another examination, the examiner
reviewed the institution's know-your-customer procedures, which included
the minimum CIP requirements but also directed employees to do more due
diligence than CIP may require depending on a risk assessment of the
account and customer. As a consequence the examiner and institution may
believe that compliance with CIP requires more procedures than necessary.
Draft examination guidance that the banking regulators intend to issue in
June 2005 may improve understanding of the difference. The draft guidance
explains that

customer due diligence begins with customer identification and
verification but also involves collecting information in order to evaluate
the purpose of the account to be able to detect, monitor, and report
suspicious activity. One regulatory official told us that the banking
regulators now refer to know-your-customer procedures as "customer due
diligence."

CIP Requirements for Checking In 7 examinations, we found that the
examiner confused the CIP

Government Lists

Applying CIP to Existing Customers

requirement to check government lists of suspected terrorists with another
government requirement to freeze assets and block transactions of
designated persons and entities. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) requires financial institutions to freeze assets or block
transactions of people and entities on the List of Specially Designated
and Blocked Persons.33 Therefore, financial institutions check customers
against this list to ensure that they are in compliance. In these 7
examinations, the examiners noted that the financial institution was not
compliant with the CIP requirement to check government lists because the
institution was not checking customers against the OFAC list. However, as
FinCEN and the banking regulators noted in the first set of CIP FAQs,
lists published by OFAC whose independent requirements stem from statutes
other than the PATRIOT Act and are not limited to terrorism, have not been
designated for purposes of the CIP rule.

Two examinations documented disputes or confusion about the extent to
which financial institutions should apply the CIP requirement to existing
customers who open new accounts. In one examination, the examiner cited a
CIP deficiency because the institution had not updated the address
information for all of its existing customers. However, the CIP rule only
applies when an existing customer is opening a new account and the CIP
rule does not expect institutions to update records on existing customers
if it has a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of its
customers. As stated in FAQs for the CIP rule issued by FinCEN and the
banking regulators, a bank can demonstrate it has a reasonable belief that
it knows its customers' true identities if it had comparable procedures in
place prior to October 1, 2003, or provide documentation showing that it
has had a

33OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against
countries and groups of individuals, such as terrorists and narcotics
traffickers. OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or
controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also
lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics
traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific.
Collectively, such individuals and companies are called "Specially
Designated Nationals" or "SDNs." Their assets are to be blocked and U.S.
persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.

long-standing relationship with a particular customer. In the other
examination, the institution and the examiners were familiar with the CIP
requirements but differed in interpreting the extent to which an
institution can develop a policy that exempts existing customers who open
new accounts. The institution disputed the examiners' finding that it was
not in compliance with CIP because it had assumed it knew the identity of
all of its customers who had opened accounts prior to January 2000. The
institution argued that it had procedures in place prior to 2000 that were
similar to CIP procedures and therefore did not have to apply the CIP
requirement to existing customers who open new accounts.

Most Examinations in Our Sample Covered Section 314(a), While about Half
Covered Section 314(b) in Part Because It Is Voluntary

As shown in table 5, most of the examinations in our sample-about 76
percent-included a review of compliance with section 314(a), but
documentation of specific aspects of section 314(a) were somewhat less. We
found documentation in 58 percent (91 of 157) of the examinations in which
the examiner determined that the financial institution was receiving
314(a) information requests from FinCEN. We also looked for evidence of
whether the examiner tested the 314(a) procedures and found documentation
of testing for about 16 percent (25 of 157) of the examinations.

Although many of the examinations had documentation that the examiner had
reviewed section 314(a), the documentation, such as the examination report
or a summary written by an examiner, did not always provide enough
specificity for us to determine if the examiner had verified that the
financial institution was receiving the requests or tested the procedures.
Also, in some cases, the examination procedures did not require that
examiners test 314(a) procedures. Neither NFA nor the exchanges require in
their examination guidance that examiners test the 314(a) procedures to
check if all of the required types of records are searched, but they do
require that the examiner determine if the financial institution responded
within 2 weeks if it had a customer account that matched a subject on the
314(a) request. An SEC official told us that it would be difficult to test
the 314(a) procedures in many cases because many financial institutions
destroy the 314(a) information requests after they have searched their
accounts. The examination procedures for section 314(a) issued by the
banking regulators are also conducted under a risk-based approach. Under
the risk-based approach, examiners may determine the need to select a
sample of positive matches or recent 314(a) requests to test the
procedures.

Table 5: Coverage of Section 314(a) in Our Sample of Examinations
Conducted between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004

                                                        Evidence that section
                               Number of examinations in 314(a) was generally
                                             Regulator or SRO sample reviewed

Banking

FDIC 20

Federal Reserve 20

NCUA 20

OCC 20

OTS 16

Securities

SEC-Broker-Dealersa 11

NASD 20

NYSE 21

Futures

NFAb 5

CBOT 2

CME 2

                              Total 157 120 (76%)

Source: GAO analysis of examination sample.

aThe SEC sample for section 314(a) excludes examinations of 6 mutual fund
entities. bThe NFA sample for section 314(a) excludes examinations of 15
introducing brokers.

The samples for SEC and NFA are smaller in our review of section 314(a)
because certain types of financial institutions do not typically receive
the 314(a) information requests from FinCEN. According to SEC and FinCEN
officials, under the 314(a) process, information requests are generally
sent out to banks, credit unions, broker-dealers, and futures commission
merchants because these types of financial institutions have an
established infrastructure for capturing point of contact information.
Also, SEC officials told us that because mutual fund shares are typically
purchased through a principal underwriter, which is a registered
broker-dealer, most mutual fund accounts would likely be covered by
broker-dealers who receive 314(a) information requests. Therefore, SEC
does not examine mutual funds for compliance with section 314(a) at this
time. SEC officials said that because many of the examinations of
broker-dealers in our sample were oversight examinations of NASD and NYSE,
some examinations

would not necessarily review all aspects of a financial institution's
antimoney laundering program.

The number of examinations in our sample of NFA examinations that covered
section 314(a) is fewer than for CIP because most of the examinations
included in our NFA sample were examinations of introducing brokers. NFA
officials explained that introducing brokers do not typically receive
314(a) requests because under industry regulation every customer of an
introducing broker must also be a customer of a futures commission
merchant. Therefore, if introducing brokers were required to conduct
314(a) searches, they would be searching the same universe of customers
covered by the 314(a) requests sent to futures commission merchants. Also,
two of the NFA examinations of futures commission merchants did not cover
section 314(a) because (1) NYSE and NASD had recently examined one of the
firms and had covered it and (2) NFA limited the scope of the examination
of the other firm based on prior NFA examinations that found the
procedures were adequate. The two CBOT examinations did not cover section
314(a) because the examinations we reviewed were conducted prior to the
issuance of the futures exchanges' revised examination guidance and
procedures in February 2004 that were updated to include section 314(a).

Some of the OCC and NYSE examinations also did not cover a review of
section 314 procedures because our review occurred during the early
implementation phase and their examination approaches were still evolving.
According to OCC officials, OCC examinations in our sample did not always
cover section 314(a) procedures because during this time period OCC was in
the process of implementing its approach to reviewing the PATRIOT Act
provisions. In February 2004, OCC issued guidance to its examiners to
identify those banks with a high risk money laundering profile with the
intent of giving those institutions a higher priority in the examination
cycle for covering the PATRIOT Act provisions. Because OCC examiners were
just beginning to review the PATRIOT Act provisions during the time of our
review, some examinations may have not covered all aspects of the PATRIOT
Act. OCC officials also said that some examiners may have focused on CIP
because CIP procedures are more complex. OCC officials said that
compliance with section 314 and the CIP requirement would be examined in
all large banks by March 2005 and in all small and mid-sized banks by end
of 2006. NYSE examinations did not always cover section 314(a) procedures,
in part, because NYSE examination procedures were not clear about how
examiners should review section 314(a) procedures. Initially, NYSE had
included an examination procedure

covering section 314(a) within its examination objective covering the
firm's anti-money laundering program. NYSE officials created a separate
examination objective for section 314(a) while we were conducting our
review and told us that the revised questions and procedures were
incorporated into the anti-money laundering examination module in December
2004.

As shown in table 6, about 55 percent of the examinations in our sample
covered section 314(b). The sharing of information with other financial
institutions pursuant to section 314(b) is voluntary. As a consequence,
some examiners may have chosen not to examine for compliance with section
314(b) regulations and some federal financial regulators and SROs did not
develop examination procedures for determining compliance with section
314(b) regulations. SEC did not include section 314(b) in its examination
procedures for mutual funds because it is voluntary. The futures SROs-NFA,
CME, and CBOT-also did not include procedures for examining compliance
with section 314(b) regulations. An NFA official told us that they did not
review 314(b) because it is voluntary. Most of the regulators and SROs
that examined section 314(b) procedures emphasized in their guidance that
the provision is voluntary and financial institutions can choose not to
share customer information with other financial institutions or share
customer information without the benefit of the safe harbor. However,
financial institutions may choose to share information without providing
notice to FinCEN and be at risk of violating privacy laws. An NYSE
official told us that they assess compliance with section 314(b)
regulations to ensure that the financial institution will not violate
privacy laws. The procedures issued jointly by the federal banking
regulators state that the failure to follow the section 314(b) procedures
is not a violation of section 314(b) but could lead to a violation of
privacy laws or other laws and regulations.

Table 6: Coverage of Section 314(b) in Our Sample of Examinations
Conducted between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004

Number of examinations Regulator or SRO in sample Covered section 314(b)
Banking

FDIC 20

Federal Reserve 20

NCUA 20

OCC 20

OTS 16

Securities

SEC-Broker-Dealers 11

SEC-Mutual Funds 6

NASD 20

NYSE 21

Futures

NFA 18

CBOT 2

CME 2

                               Total 176 97 (55%)

                  Source: GAO analysis of examination sample.

Federal Financial Regulators and SROs Generally Used Informal Actions to
Address CIP and Section 314(a) Deficiencies and Violations

Because the regulations were new and many deficiencies and violations were
technical mistakes, the federal financial regulators and SROs mostly took
informal actions34 to address deficiencies and apparent violations
associated with section 314 and CIP. In our sample of 176 examinations, 32
examinations reported deficiencies or apparent violations related to
section 314(a) and 79 examinations reported deficiencies or apparent
violations relating to CIP requirements.

The federal financial regulators and SROs used different terms to classify
problems associated with section 314 and CIP and other elements of
institutions' anti-money laundering programs. For example, some regulators
would generally identify section 314 or CIP problems as "violations" or
"apparent violations," while some of the banking regulators would use the
term "deficiency" in some cases and "violation" in other cases. Officials
from one of the banking regulators told us that they are in the process of
developing guidance on the matter. To allow for comparison and aggregation
across the different regulators and SROs, we examined problems identified
as both violations and deficiencies for our analysis. The varying
terminology has an impact on the banking regulators' reporting systems,
since some regulators track apparent violations but do not track
deficiencies. This issue will be examined in more depth in other work we
are conducting on the banking regulators and BSA examinations and
enforcement.

The types of section 314(a) deficiencies and violations in our sample
varied. Table 7 lists examples of the types of deficiencies and violations
in the examinations we identified as being minor or significant. We
defined those deficiencies and violations as minor when the financial
institution was generally receiving 314(a) requests and searching its
accounts, but its procedures needed enhancements. Those deficiencies and
violations that we defined as significant were situations in which the
institution was not receiving 314(a) requests or adequately searching
accounts.

34Regulators may use an informal action when a financial institution's
overall condition is sound, but it is necessary to obtain written
commitments to ensure that identified problems and weaknesses are
corrected. Agreement to an informal action can be evidence of a commitment
to correct identified problems before they adversely affect an
institution's performance or cause further decline in its condition.
Informal enforcement actions include commitment letters, deficiency
letters, and memorandums of understanding.

Table 7: Examples of Minor and Significant 314(a) Deficiencies and
Violations Identified in the Sample

Significant or major deficiencies and Minor deficiencies and violations
violations

o  Point of contact information was incorrect;  o  Institution's point of
contact was not and receiving 314(a) requests; and

o  Institution had not formalized its 314(a)  o  Institution did not have
internal

procedures. procedures in place to respond to 314(a) requests.

Source: GAO analysis of examination sample.

The severity of CIP deficiencies and violations also varied. We defined
CIP deficiencies and violations as being minor when the financial
institution generally had CIP procedures, but some aspects needed
enhancements or were incomplete according to the regulatory requirements.
Situations in which the institution did not have any CIP procedures or the
examiner found that the institution was generally not following its CIP
procedures we defined as significant. Table 8 lists some examples of minor
and significant CIP deficiencies and violations in our sample of
examinations.

Table 8: Examples of Minor and Significant CIP Deficiencies and Violations
Identified in the Sample

Significant or major deficiencies and Minor deficiencies and violations
violations

o  CIP testing is not included in the institution's BSA/AML audit plan;

o  CIP policy did not adequately address when it will rely on another firm
to perform customer identification procedures;

o  Institution did not provide adequate notice to customers that the bank
will gather personal information to verify their identities; and

o  Institution failed to develop and adopt a board approved, written CIP;
although institution was in compliance with the substance of section 326.

o  Institution did not follow its identification verification procedures;
and

o  Institution did not have a CIP.

Source: GAO analysis of examination sample.

In many cases, the examinations included documentation showing that
institution management agreed to correct deficiencies or violations. In
several instances, the examination included documentation in which the

board of directors of the institution is directed to address the
deficiencies. For example, the Federal Reserve required a board of
directors to address a bank's failure to maintain documentation of its
314(a) searches and to address the violation within 30 days of the
examination. Similarly, NCUA noted that a credit union lacked CIP policies
and procedures and directed its board of directors to address the apparent
violation within a specific timeframe. Additionally, in a few cases,
examiners documented that deficiencies or violations were corrected during
the exam. For example, a financial institution examined by NASD updated
its procedures for addressing FinCEN information requests while examiners
were on-site.

Recent Formal Enforcement Actions Have Cited Violations of CIP and Section
314(a)

Although none of the examinations in our sample resulted in formal
enforcement actions,35 recent formal enforcement actions involved
violations of the CIP requirement and the regulations under section
314(a). The federal financial regulators have independent statutory
authority to institute formal enforcement actions themselves, and they may
also refer BSA violations to FinCEN for formal enforcement action.36 Under
delegated authority, FinCEN is the administrator of the BSA and has the
authority to enforce BSA regulations.37 FinCEN's Office of Compliance and
Regulatory Enforcement evaluates enforcement matters that may result in a
variety of remedies, including the assessment of civil money penalties.

The federal banking regulators have the authority to take formal
enforcement action if they determine that a financial institution is
engaging in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable law
or regulation.38 According to officials from the federal banking
regulators,

35Unlike most informal actions, formal enforcement actions are authorized
by statute, are generally more severe, and are disclosed to the public.
Also, formal actions are enforceable through the assessment of civil money
penalties or fines, and, with the exception of formal agreements, through
the federal court system. Formal enforcement actions include cease and
desist orders and other consent orders and formal written agreements.

36In addition, SRO rules typically provide for institution of enforcement
actions against members of the SRO for violation of applicable laws and
regulations and for the imposition of sanctions on members for such
conduct. SROs can make referrals to the SEC or CFTC for referral to
FinCEN.

37See Treasury Department Order No. 108-01, dated September 26, 2002, and
31 C.F.R. 103.56. The Secretary is authorized to delegate such
responsibilities to FinCEN pursuant to 31 U.S.C. S: 310 S:(b)(2)(i) and
(J).

3812 U.S.C. S: 1818(b).

they would take formal action, such as issuing a cease and desist order,
if they detected systemic or willful violations of the BSA.39 Violations
of formal agreements or orders, such as a cease and desist order, may
result in the assessment of civil money penalties. According to a
September 2004 MOU among the federal banking regulators and FinCEN, the
federal banking regulators have agreed to promptly notify FinCEN of
significant BSA violations or deficiencies by financial institutions under
their jurisdiction.40 SEC officials said that significant and willful BSA
violations would be referred to its enforcement division, as well as
FinCEN.41 Similarly, NASD and NYSE have their own rules to enforce
anti-money laundering regulations42 and officials from NASD and NYSE said
that they would take formal actions and may make a formal referral to
FinCEN if they encountered certain BSA violations. Officials from CFTC and
the three futures SROs in our review also said that they would take formal
action for significant BSA violations under their own rules to enforce
anti-money laundering regulations as well as refer the violations to
FinCEN.43

We identified several formal enforcement actions taken by the federal
banking regulators and FinCEN that included violations of CIP that
demonstrate how violations of CIP and section 314(a) are enforced (see
table 9). Only one enforcement action-AmSouth-included a violation of
section 314(a). These enforcement actions generally consisted of civil
money penalties, supervisory or written agreements, or cease and desist
orders. In each of these actions, the financial institution agreed to
comply with the enforcement action.

39A cease and desist order requires an institution to cease and desist
from unsafe or unsound practices and may require the institution to take
affirmative action to correct the conditions resulting from any such
violation or practice.

40The MOU specifies that a "significant BSA violation or deficiency"
includes systemic or pervasive BSA compliance program deficiencies or
reporting or recordkeeping violations, as well as a one-time, nontechnical
BSA violation that demonstrates willful or reckless disregard for the BSA
requirements or that creates a substantial risk of money laundering or the
financing of terrorism within the financial institution.

41SEC has the authority to take an enforcement action against
broker-dealers and mutual funds who violate anti-money laundering
regulations set forth in 17 C.F.R. S:S: 240.17a-8, and 270. 38a-1.

42NASD, Rule 3011(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); and NYSE, Rule 445.

43CFTC, Rule 42.2; CBOT, Rule 423.05; CME, Rule 981; and NFA, Rule 2-9(c).

Table 9: Recent Enforcement Actions and Civil Money Penalties against Banks That
                   Included CIP and Section 314(a) Violations

                                      Enforcement     
                                   action/civil money 
      Financial     Agency  Date        penalty         CIP or section 314    
     institution                                             violation        
                                                      In the Cease and Desist 
    Abacus Federal   OTS                              Order issued on the     
       Savings             10/2003   $175,000 civil   same                    
                                                       day as the civil money 
         Bank                        money penalty       penalty, OTS ordered 
                                                                       Abacus 
                                                          to implement an     
                                                       adequate AML program   
                                                               that           
                                                       included an adequate   
                                                               CIP.           
                                                               As part of the 
Fort Lee Federal  OTS                                  agreement, Fort Lee 
       Savings             2/2004     Supervisory            agreed to update 
                                                         its BSA and OFAC     
         Bank                                              policies and       
                                       agreement            procedures,       
                                                        including its CIP.    

BAC Florida Bank FDIC 4/2004 Cease and  Among other things, FDIC cited the 
                                 desist                      bank for failing 
                                  order   to implement an effective customer  
                                          identification                      
                                          program. The bank was required to   
                                          develop an                          
                                           effective customer due diligence   
                                                      program and             
                                          provide for internal controls,      
                                          independent testing,                
                                             suitable training, and a BSA     
                                                   officer to ensure          
                                                      compliance.             

Hudson United   FDIC   5/2004 Cease and desist  Among other things, FDIC   
        Bank                                           ordered Hudson to      
                                      order        complete a review of its   
                                                             CIP.             
Riggs National OCC and          $25 million     In addition to other BSA   
        Bank              5/2004      civil         violations, FinCEN and    
                  FinCEN          money penaltya     OCC found that Riggs did 
                                                     not adequately implement 
                                                  enhanced due diligence and  
                                                         CIP programs.        
First Midwest  Federal                 Written Bank agreed to submit to    
        Bank              7/2004        agreement the Federal Reserve an      
                  Reserve                         acceptable enhanced written 
                                                         customer due         
                                                  diligence program within 60 
                                                       days of the agreement. 

ABN AMRO Federal  7/2004 Written agreement The bank agreed to submit an    
     Bank                                     acceptable written              
            Reserveb                           customer due diligence and CIP 
                                                            program within 60 
                                               days of the agreement. As part 
                                                          of the program, the 
                                               bank agreed to determine the   
                                                        appropriate           
                                                   documentation necessary to 
                                                      verify the identity and 
                                                business activities of its    
                                                        customers.            

AmSouth Bank FinCEN and 10/2004   $10 million        AmSouth's AML program 
                                        civil        lacked adequate internal 
                 Federal           money penaltyc  controls and procedures    
                                                   that were necessary to     
                 Reserve                           enable the performance of  
                                                   appropriate customer       
                                                   due diligence, including   
                                                   compliance with section    
                                                    314(a). AmSouth agreed to 
                                                         submit an acceptable 
                                                         written customer due 
                                                     diligence program within 
                                                                           30 
                                                     days of the agreement.   

First Community FDIC 10/2004 Cease and  FDIC cited the bank for failing to 
        Bank                     desist                   implement effective 
                                  order   customer identification procedures, 
                                          among other                         
                                          things. Bank required to establish  
                                          a CIP and 314                       
                                               information sharing guidelines 
                                                        within 60 days of the 
                                                        order.                

(Continued From Previous Page)

Enforcement

action/civil money Financial institution Agency Date penalty CIP or
section 314 violation

Beach Bank FDIC 11/2004 Cease and desist    Among other things, FDIC cited 
                                                          the bank failing to 
                                order       implement an effective customer   
                                            identification                    
                                            program. FDIC ordered the bank to 
                                            develop and                       
                                            implement a written plan for the  
                                                        continued             
                                            administration of its CIP program 
                                                               and procedures 
                                              within 60 days of the order.    

Liberty Bank of New York FDIC 11/2004 Cease and desist FDIC ordered the
bank to revise and enhance its order customer identification program and
account opening procedures.

Security State FDIC 12/2004 Cease and Among other things, FDIC ordered the 
        Bank                    desist                 bank to                
                                 order      establish an adequate independent 
                                                              testing program 
                                         within 60 days of the order. As part 
                                                             of this program, 
                                           the bank was ordered to test its   
                                                       customer               
                                         identification program, customer due 
                                                               diligence, and 
                                          compliance with information sharing 
                                                                requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of regulatory enforcement actions.

aOCC and FinCEN assessed concurrent $25 million civil money penalties. The
agencies stated that the penalties would be satisfied by one payment of
$25 million to Treasury.

bThe State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
was also part of the written agreement.

cAmSouth also forfeited $40 million as part of a deferred prosecution
agreement with the Justice Department.

Two of these enforcement actions provide additional examples of how CIP
has been confused with know-your-customer policies. In two of the cases
above, Beach Bank and BAC Florida Bank, FDIC's cease and desist orders
cited institutions for violations of 31 C.F.R. S: 103.121 by "failing to
implement an effective customer identification program and/or effective
`Know Your Customer' policies and procedures." While 31 C.F.R. S: 103.121
requires banks to implement a CIP appropriate for their size and type of
business, it does not require banks to adopt know-your-customer policies
and procedures. Know-your-customer procedures generally require more
information than CIP.

We also identified five formal enforcement actions brought against
brokerdealers for violations of CIP and section 314(a) requirements.
According to NASD, the firms that were the subject of the NASD enforcement
actions in table 10 were generally firms with limited risk profiles. Most
of the firms did not have extensive client bases, a large number of
registered representatives, and multiple branch offices. Therefore, the
fine amounts reflect both the smaller size and financial resources of the
firms and the lower risk of money laundering inherent in their business
models.

  Table 10: Recent Enforcement Actions against Securities Broker-Dealers That
                   Included CIP and Section 314(a) Violations

                                      Enforcement  
       Financial      Agency  Date      action       CIP or section 314(a)    
      institution                                          violation          
                                                            After identifying 
                      FinCEN         $10,000 civil       violations during an 
Hartsfield Capital        11/2003         money               examination, 
    Securities Inc.                     penalty     SEC referred this case to 
                                                         FinCEN. FinCEN found 
                                                     that Hartsfield lacked   
                                                   policies, procedures, and  
                                                   internal controls relating 
                                                          to its CIP.         
        Harrison       NASD          Firm expelled  Among other things, the   
    Securities, Inc.          12/04  from              firm did not have      
                                         NASD      procedures for responding  
                                                      to 314(a) requests.     

Investors Brokerage of Texas, Ltd.

NASD 12/04	$10,000 fine and censure

Among other things, the firm's AML program did not adequately establish a
CIP.

Trident Partners NASD 2/05	$17,500 fine and censure

Among other things, the firm failed to receive FinCEN 314(a) notices
because it failed to update its AML contact information.

FSC Securities Corp. NASD 3/05 $40,000 fine and Among other things, the
firm failed to maintain censure adequate procedures that addressed keeping
confidential FinCEN information requests.

            Source: GAO analysis of regulatory enforcement actions.

Regulators' Processes for Tracking Examination Information Varied with
Some Having Weaknesses That Could Affect Their Ability to Monitor
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

Reviewing examination data and 176 examinations across six regulators and
five SROs provided us an opportunity to see a wide range of practices for
managing anti-money laundering oversight programs. One of the key
practices that varied across programs was the tracking system used to
track examination information. The information that was provided to us on
the examinations and apparent violations that covered section 314 and CIP
raised broader issues about how the regulators and SROs track anti-money
laundering compliance information. To select our sample of examinations,
we requested information on the examinations and apparent violations that
covered section 314 and CIP, but two of the regulators could not easily
obtain this information from their tracking systems. Although we assessed
the reliability of the data we received, we did not conduct broad
assessments of the information systems and processes regulators and SROs
use to track examinations in this report, in part, because we have other
work reviewing the banking regulators' anti-money laundering examinations
and enforcement programs and SEC's examination programs that both include
reviewing how they track examinations. However, we highlight the problems
we encountered in this review because the problems could affect
regulators' ability to monitor compliance with sections 314 and CIP as
well as other anti-money laundering requirements.

Generally, OCC, FDIC, OTS, and NCUA were able to respond to our data
request using their examination tracking systems and provide information
on examinations that would most likely cover section 314 and CIP by
identifying examinations that covered anti-money laundering compliance and
information on apparent violations. The information varied in determining
whether the examinations actually covered CIP and section 314 during the
period of time between October 1, 2003, and May 31, 2004, because the
regulators began examining for these provisions at different times. For
example, OCC's system is designed to capture examination areas but
examiners were not provided guidance to begin reviewing PATRIOT Act
provisions until late February 2004, and therefore, the system was not
always recording that they had performed modules covering the PATRIOT Act
sections for the period of our review. Also, NCUA officials told us that
we were more likely to be able to review examinations that covered section
314 and CIP in examinations completed on or after February 2004, because
those examinations were more likely to have used the revised examination
questionnaire for anti-money laundering compliance that had been installed
on computers in December 2003.

The Federal Reserve had some difficulty responding to our request because
the Federal Reserve's existing automated tracking system for examinations
did not capture sufficient detail on whether its examinations cover a
review of anti-money laundering compliance. Although full-scope
examinations are all supposed to cover anti-money laundering compliance,
many of the Federal Reserve's target examinations may also cover
anti-money laundering compliance, but their tracking system does not
capture this level of detail. Therefore, the Federal Reserve could not
readily identify the population of examinations that would most likely
cover CIP and section 314. Also, although the Federal Reserve tracks
information on apparent violations, its tracking system does not track
deficiencies. This distinction was important to our information request
because the Federal Reserve had not had any apparent violations related to
section 314 or CIP, but its Federal Reserve Banks had reported
deficiencies in quarterly reports to the Federal Reserve Board. However,
the information in the quarterly reports was not sufficiently detailed
enough for identifying specific examinations that had deficiencies related
to CIP or section 314. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Board had to request
this information from the 12 Federal Reserve Banks who had to manually go
through examination files and compile the information. Federal Reserve
officials told us that they are making significant enhancements to the
tracking system to capture additional information on Bank Secrecy Act and
anti-money laundering compliance.

SEC's examination tracking system is supposed to capture information on
whether the examination included certain focus areas, such as a review of
anti-money laundering compliance. However, when attempting to respond to
our information request on broker-dealer examinations, SEC discovered that
the information from its tracking system did not appear to be accurate.
According to an SEC official, SEC information on anti-money laundering
examinations for broker-dealers was not always accurate because examiners
were not always inputting all of the focus areas that they covered,
including anti-money laundering. Therefore, SEC conducted a word search
through its database of examination reports to identify examinations that
covered section 314 and CIP and identified about 26 examinations to
respond to our information request. After our data request, SEC officials
emailed a reminder to examination staff of the importance of accurately
filling out all examination information in the tracking system, including
identifying when anti-money laundering is a focus area, and asked that
they review the accuracy of this information for completed examinations
and update it as necessary. For mutual fund examinations, SEC used the
same tracking system to identify all routine examinations of mutual funds
during our examination review period because anti-money laundering was
expected to be a focus area for all routine examinations and did not
encounter the same problem. NASD and NYSE were able to identify
examinations and apparent violations of section 314 and CIP using their
examination tracking systems.

The futures SROs provided us information without any difficulty. According
to an NFA official, once NFA had identified through its tracking system
the population of examinations that covered anti-money laundering
compliance and those examinations that included an apparent violation, the
examinations were reviewed to identify whether the apparent violation was
related to section 314 or CIP. CME and CBOT each only have approximately
30 to 40 futures commission merchants at any point in time that they track
and had only completed a few examinations during the time period for our
examination review and therefore did not have difficulty responding to our
information request.

  Law Enforcement Officials Believe That Section 314(a) and CIP Have Been
  Valuable Tools in Terrorist and Money Laundering Investigations

Law enforcement officials praised the 314(a) process, stating that it has
improved coordination between law enforcement agencies and financial
institutions and indicated that CIP has also assisted investigations. The
314(a) process has resulted in discovery of additional accounts held by
suspects and issuance of grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, arrests,
and indictments. Most law enforcement officials we interviewed also
believed that CIP requirements have helped investigators by ensuring that
better and more detailed information is collected and maintained at
financial institutions. Although CIP and 314(a) processes are useful tools
for investigating money laundering and terrorist financing cases, the
decision to bring charges in specific cases is always discretionary.

Law Enforcement Officials Believe That the Section 314(a) Process Has
Improved Coordination with Financial Institutions and Has Led to More
Efficient Investigations

Officials from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement
agencies told us that the 314(a) process has improved coordination between
law enforcement agencies and financial institutions and has increased the
speed and efficiency of investigations. Department of Justice officials,
including supervisory prosecutors in two U.S. Attorneys Offices, with whom
we spoke, said that the 314(a) process facilitated the flow of information
between financial institutions and law enforcement officials by connecting
FinCEN to approximately 20,000 financial institutions.

Investigators use the information FinCEN gathers from these financial
institutions as evidence in building cases against potential money
launderers and terrorist financers. FinCEN recently reported that the
314(a) system has processed 381 requests since it resumed operation in
February 2003. Of the total number of requests processed, 137 of them were
submitted by federal law enforcement agencies in the conduct of terrorist
financing investigations and 244 in the conduct of money laundering
investigations. FinCEN also reported that 314(a) feedback from law
enforcement requesters has been overwhelmingly positive. In approximately
2 years, February 2003 through March 2005, 314(a) requests submitted by
law enforcement have resulted in the identification of thousands of new
accounts and transactions. According to information that law enforcement
provides to FinCEN, the 314(a) process has provided information that
helped support the issuance of more than 800 subpoenas, 11 search
warrants, and 9 arrests. However, FinCEN officials cautioned that this
information represents feedback from only 10 percent of the cases for
which 314(a) information requests were made and that FinCEN does not
verify the accuracy of the data provided by law enforcement officials.

Almost all of the law enforcement officials we interviewed said that the
314(a) process improved the speed and efficiency of investigations by
allowing investigators to query a large number of financial institutions
in a short amount of time. One FBI official we interviewed showed us
information on how a 314(a) request led to identification of additional
suspect accounts across 23 states and 45 financial institutions. Prior to
submitting the request, the FBI was aware of only four accounts. One law
enforcement official told us that prior to section 314, law enforcement
officials often sent subpoenas to individual banks for information. They
could not, however, simultaneously request financial institutions across
the country to search accounts or transactions for groups of individuals
or even one person. According to FBI officials, the 314(a) process
improves the efficiency of investigations because agents spend less time
finding the suspect's specific financial transactions or accounts. The
results from a 314(a) request may also help law enforcement to eliminate
false leads. One prosecutor told us that the 314(a) process had been used
3 or 4 times during investigations of terrorist financing or money
laundering cases. However, all of the law enforcement officials we
interviewed told us that they are very judicious in their use of 314(a)
requests, in part, because they were aware of the costs to the financial
services industry and also because submitting the request can expose a
covert operation. For instance, it is possible that a financial
institution will take some action, permissible under the law, but which
has the unintended effect of compromising the investigation.44

According to some law enforcement officials, the 314(a) process also
allows investigators to track down sophisticated criminals who might
normally elude typical investigative approaches. For example, one
prosecutor told us that a potential money launderer or terrorist financer
with a lot of knowledge and sophistication about financial institutions
might have been able to circumvent traditional approaches used to collect
information, such as surveillance or tracing financial transactions to
individual financial institutions. However, in her view, the 314(a)
process has allowed investigators to cast a wider net thereby
significantly improving the investigative effort.

44Requests for information submitted by FinCEN to financial institutions
pursuant to the rules adopted under 314(a) are confidential; however,
financial institutions may use information provided by a section 314(a)
request to determine whether to establish or maintain an account, or to
engage in a transaction or to assist the financial institution in
complying with the requirements of the BSA and the BSA Regulations.

Information Collected through CIP Can Assist Money Laundering and
Terrorist Financing Investigations

Many of the law enforcement officials we interviewed said financial
institutions are collecting and maintaining better and more detailed
information as a result of CIP requirements. One prosecutor told us that
as a result of section 326 regulations, grand jury subpoenas can be used
to obtain more substantive and detailed information on accounts. This
improvement was due to the fact that the CIP rule requires financial
institutions to consistently gather more information from a customer when
an account is opened. For example, investigators and prosecutors are now
able to receive social security numbers, dates of birth, and complete
addresses when they issue subpoenas. The same prosecutor told us that in
the past, subpoenaed account information concerning criminal suspects was
often incomplete. For instance, instead of a physical address they would
receive only a P.O. Box or mailbox associated with the account.
Standardization of account opening procedures has also made it easier for
law enforcement to make positive matches with suspects on 314(a) lists.
Prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, some financial institutions
already had established policies and procedures to verify customer
identities, but the financial services industry overall was not subject to
uniform minimum requirements for identifying and maintaining customer
information. As a result, law enforcement officials did not always know
what kind of information they would acquire from institutions pursuant to
a subpoena or warrant.45

Successful Prosecutions of Terrorist Financing and Money Laundering Cases
Depend on Numerous Factors

Although the CIP requirement and 314(a) requests have made useful
information available to federal prosecutors who are investigating and
prosecuting terrorist financing and money laundering cases, prosecution of
specific cases is always discretionary. Department of Justice officials,
including prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys Offices, said that case specific
factors continue to determine whether or not a prosecutor will bring
charges on a terrorist financing or money laundering case. There are no
specific monetary thresholds or criteria that determine when a prosecutor
will pursue a money laundering or terrorist financing case. One prosecutor

45See, for example: 31 U.S.C. 5318(h) and the regulations adopted pursuant
thereto, which require certain financial institutions to adopt an
anti-money laundering program that includes policies and procedures for
verifying customer identity; 12 U.S.C. 1829b(c) and the regulations
adopted pursuant thereto, which require certain financial institutions to
maintain records and other evidence of customer identities; and 12 U.S.C.
1818(s) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto, which require
certain financial institutions to establish BSA compliance programs.

told us that these provisions helped prosecutors better understand the
financial lay of the land in anti-money laundering and terrorist financing
and that the use of the provisions by law enforcement leads to better
investigations. It is not feasible, however, to enumerate how many cases
were successfully prosecuted as a direct result of Suspicious Activity
Reports or 314(a) requests since each prosecution is unique and based on
many factors.

Prosecutors in two U.S. Attorney's Offices also told us that the
provisions, while helpful, could not alter the fact that anti-money
laundering and terrorist financing cases are resource intensive and
complex. Prosecutors told us that reviewing transactions for a typical
money services business or currency exchange was time consuming and may
typically involve review of voluminous daily transaction records. Once the
transaction analysis is performed, the information then must be reviewed
in coordination with other evidence to determine if it can support proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the evidence used to build the case
is suitable for presentation in court.

Conclusions	Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the U.S. government and
the financial industry have worked together to develop and implement the
regulations required by the PATRIOT Act. It was challenging to develop
joint regulations that covered so many sectors of the financial industry.
The financial industry has implemented procedures to comply with the
PATRIOT Act's regulations, including the CIP requirement and the
information sharing provisions in section 314, but it has encountered
several challenges along the way and there are some concerns and issues
that remain outstanding. FinCEN, the federal financial regulators, and
SROs have made a concerted effort to reach out to and educate the industry
on its responsibilities for customer identification and sharing
information with law enforcement. However, the interagency process has
delayed the release of additional guidance for CIP. The implementation
challenges that industry officials shared with us demonstrate that the
government will need to continue its education efforts and work with
industry to resolve outstanding issues. Primarily, industry officials are
unclear about the regulators' views on what constitutes sufficient
verification procedures for certain high-risk customers, such as foreign
individuals and companies and whether they and their examiners would view
a customer and the appropriate level of verification in the same way.
Therefore, industry officials would like to receive more guidance from
FinCEN and the regulators on issues such as these.

FinCEN, the federal financial regulators, and SROs have also taken steps
to implement section 314 and CIP and have begun examining financial
institutions and taking enforcement action for violations. However, our
review revealed examiner difficulties in assessing compliance with CIP
that could reduce its effectiveness at uncovering suspicious or
questionable customers or lead to inconsistencies in the way examiners
conduct examinations. Because our review found that not all examinations
documented a review of the risk-based aspect of CIP, we believe that some
examiners and financial institutions may not fully understand how the CIP
requirements should be applied to higher risk customers. The primary
reason that Treasury and the federal financial regulators adopted the
riskbased approach to verifying customer identity was so that financial
institutions would be able to focus more effort on high-risk customers.
Also, some of the other difficulties we found in our review of
examinations highlight how inconsistent interpretations can occur during
examinations. For example, some examiners came to different conclusions
about how the CIP requirement is applied to existing customers that open
new accounts. Because examination findings can cause a financial
institution to change its practices, such inconsistencies could lead to
significant variations in policies and procedures among financial
institutions based on differing interpretations of the CIP requirements by
examiners.

Although our review focused on two specific anti-money laundering
regulations, the enforcement of these regulations occurs under the broader
BSA regulatory structure and, hence, the results of our review should be
understood in this broader context. Enforcing the BSA, as amended by the
PATRIOT Act, is a shared responsibility among FinCEN and the federal
financial regulators. As the administrator of BSA, FinCEN has
responsibility for enforcement of the provisions added by the PATRIOT Act,
but FinCEN relies on the federal financial regulators to conduct
examinations and alert it to violations that warrant an enforcement
action. This arrangement is even more complicated for securities and
futures financial institutions because SEC and CFTC largely rely on the
SROs to conduct examinations and enforce rules and regulations. Since the
passage of the PATRIOT Act, FinCEN and the financial regulators have been
working more closely together to better coordinate BSA examinations and
enforcement and to improve the consistency of the information they provide
to the financial industry. FinCEN's new Office of Compliance and MOU with
the federal banking regulators are good first steps in better BSA
oversight and enforcement. In addition, FinCEN and the federal banking
regulators have worked together to develop interagency anti-money
laundering examination procedures for the first time. FinCEN is in the

process of reaching similar MOU agreements with SEC and CFTC. Whether in
issuing guidance for industry or examiners, FinCEN will need the continued
cooperation of all seven financial regulators to effectively address
problems and inconsistencies in the U.S. anti-money laundering regulatory
system.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve implementation of sections 326 and 314 of the PATRIOT Act, we
are making two recommendations:

o 	To build on education and outreach efforts and help financial
institutions subject to the CIP requirement effectively implement their
programs, we recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN
and in coordination with the federal financial regulators and SROs,
develop additional guidance covering ongoing implementation issues related
to the CIP requirement. Specifically, additional guidance on the CIP
requirement that provides examples or alternatives of how to verify the
identity of high-risk customers, such as foreign individuals and
companies, could help financial institutions develop better riskbased
procedures.

o 	To enhance examination guidance covering the CIP requirement and ensure
that examiners are well-informed about CIP requirements, we recommend that
the Director of FinCEN work with the federal financial regulators to
develop additional guidance for examiners to use in conducting BSA
examinations. Specifically, the guidance should clarify that complying
with the CIP requirement is more than determining whether the minimum
customer identification information has been obtained-the examiner should
determine whether a financial institution's CIP contains effective
risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of customers. Secondly,
the guidance should clarify how CIP fits into other customer due diligence
practices, such as know-yourcustomer procedures. Finally, the guidance
should reflect the FAQs on CIP issued for industry, which addressed the
difficulties in interpretation we observed for checking government lists
and applying the CIP requirement to existing customers.

Agency Comments and 	We provided a draft of this report for review and
comment to the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Homeland
Security; seven

Our Evaluation federal financial regulators (Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC,
OTS, NCUA,

SEC, and CFTC) and five SROs (CBOT, CME, NFA, NASD, and NYSE). We received
written comments from the Department of the Treasury, NCUA, and SEC. These
comments are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV. The Departments of
the Treasury and Justice, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, SEC, CFTC, NASD,
NYSE and NFA also provided technical comments and clarifications, which we
incorporated in this report where appropriate. The Department of Homeland
Security, OTS, CME, and CBOT had no comments.

In its written comments, Treasury said that despite the considerable
educational and outreach efforts already undertaken by FinCEN, there was
still some confusion and lack of clarity on the part of both the federal
financial regulators and SROs, and the regulated industries and examiners
who conduct compliance inspections of these industries. Treasury concurred
with our recommendations that additional guidance would improve
implementation of these regulations. Treasury also commented that, with
the diversity of financial institutions that must comply with CIP
regulations, firms need the flexibility to implement programs tailored to
their own size, location, and type of business and to allow them to use a
risk-based approach to verify the identity of their respective customer
bases. In its written comments, NCUA also supported our recommendations.
Both agencies commented that Treasury and the federal banking regulators
plan to issue new BSA examination procedures in June 2005. In its written
response, SEC commented that consistent with our recommendation, the
federal financial regulators are continuing to work cooperatively to
ensure that they provide consistent guidance on interpretive and
compliance issues. Concerning difficulties SEC had with its examination
tracking system when responding to our information request, SEC also said
that its staff is formulating improvements to the existing automated
tracking system.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this report.
At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Departments of the
Treasury, Homeland Security, and Justice; the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC,
OCC, OTS, NCUA, CFTC, SEC, NASD, NYSE, NFA, CBOT, CME, and interested
congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others on
request. In addition, this report will be available at no cost on our Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report please contact
me at (202) 512-2717 or Barbara Keller, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-9624. GAO contacts and key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.

Yvonne D. Jones Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

To determine how Treasury and the federal financial regulators developed
the regulations for CIP and section 314 and identify challenges, we
reviewed documents related to the rulemaking process including comment
letters and the Federal Register notices of the final rules and
interviewed officials from Treasury (FinCEN), Justice, the federal
financial regulators, and SROs.

To identify the government's education and outreach efforts, we
interviewed officials from Treasury (FinCEN), the federal financial
regulators, and SROs about how they have informed and educated the
industry and reviewed education and outreach materials provided to us. To
identify implementation challenges encountered by financial institutions,
we interviewed company officials and industry trade associations
representing banks, credit unions, securities broker-dealers, mutual
funds, futures commission merchants, and futures introducing brokers. We
also reviewed letters that company officials and industry representatives
sent to Treasury and the federal financial regulators during the
rulemaking process as well as after the final rules were issued that
expressed concerns and challenges they had about implementing procedures
to comply with CIP and section 314 regulations.

To determine the extent to which the federal financial regulators and SROs
have updated examination guidance and trained examiners on CIP and section
314, we reviewed copies of draft and final versions of guidance; collected
information on examiner training courses related to anti-money laundering
and the number of examiners trained in 2002, 2003, and 2004; and
interviewed officials on their examination guidance and training programs.
We also observed one anti-money laundering training course taught by the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) that provides
training to bank examiners.

To determine the extent to which the federal financial regulators have
examined for compliance and taken enforcement actions on CIP and section
314 regulations, we collected data on the number of exams completed from
October 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004, and the number of violations for
CIP and section 314 regulations for the same time period from six federal
financial regulators and five SROs. The data from the regulators and SROs
generally came from information systems and reporting processes used to
collect and track information on examinations and violations. There was
some variability in how the regulators and SROs defined examinations,
violations, and the start and end dates for examinations and therefore the
data are not comparable. However, we

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

determined that the data provided to us were generally reliable for our
purposes. Our data reliability assessments generally involved interviewing
officials about the management of the data and basic tests of the data to
determine if it appeared accurate. We attempted to select approximately 20
examinations from each regulator and SRO. To ensure that we would be able
to review a sufficient number of examinations with the types of violations
related to CIP and section 314 requirements and how the regulators and
SROs addressed violations, we sampled proportionally more examinations
that included violations of CIP and section 314 than examinations without
violations, though in some cases the number of examinations that had such
violations were less than 10 and, therefore, the sample would not include
proportionally more examinations with violations. We reviewed a total of
176 examinations. However, the number of examinations varied widely
between organizations, and in the cases of CBOT and CME, all available
examinations were selected because the number of examinations was small.1
While the selections of individual examinations were made randomly within
the subsets of violation and nonviolation examinations to minimize the
possibility of bias in our sample, the arbitrary totals selected were
small in number and not representative of the true ratio of violation to
nonviolation examinations within the organization nor the volume of
examination activity across the organizations. Therefore, these samples
are not statistically representative. However, our review of the
examinations enabled us to describe the approaches used by the regulators
to examine for compliance and highlight issues that may present challenges
for examiners in interpreting the new regulations and appropriately
assessing financial institutions for compliance. Table 11 displays the
final sample size for each of the regulators and SROs and also explains
why some examinations initially selected were not part of our final
sample.

1The samples for CBOT and CME encompass all of the examinations that
included antimoney laundering compliance completed between October 1,
2003, and May 31, 2004. The futures exchanges began anti-money laundering
examinations in 2002 and plan to reexamine firms for anti-money laundering
compliance approximately every 3 examination cycles, which ranges from 9
to 18 months, unless they are conducting an examination to follow-up on
deficiencies. Therefore, during our review period, the only examinations
CBOT and CME conducted were follow-up examinations.

                        Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Table 11: Description of Our Approach for Sampling Examinations Covering CIP and
                                  Section 314

                                                   Number of        Number of 
                              Number of Number  examinations     examinations 
                Population of               of       with no             with 
                 examinations exams     exams  violations of    violations of 
                         from initially in            CIP or       CIP and/or 
                                        final                
Regulator or      which we   sampled sample   section 314      section 314 
       SRO           sampleda                                
       FDIC             1,333        20     20             7 
     Federal              414        20     20             8 
     Reserve                                                 
       NCUA             2,109        20     20             8 
OCC-small &                                               
     mid-size              39        16     16            12 
      banks                                                  
    OCC-large               9         4      4             3 
      banks                                                  
       OTSb               245        20     16             9 
    SEC-Broker                                               
     Dealers               26        11     11             5 
    SEC-Mutual                                               
      Fundsc               71        11      6             6 
       NASD               654        20     20             5 
       NYSE                86        21     21            15 
       NFAd               193        20     18             5 
       CME                  2         2      2             1 
       CBOT                 2         2      2             2 

Source: GAO analysis and samples of regulator and SRO data.

aThe population of examinations from which we pulled our sample should not
be interpreted as the total number of examinations covering anti-money
laundering compliance during this time period. Rather, the population
generally represents the examinations identified by the regulator or SRO
as more likely to cover section 314 and CIP. We also deleted some
examinations provided to us in the original data sets because they fell
outside our timeframes or were ineligible for our purposes (e.g.,
examinations conducted by a state regulator).

bThe original OTS sample mistakenly had 3 duplicate exams in the violation
sample. An additional exam was dropped at OTS request because an examiner
needed the workpapers for a follow-up exam. Therefore, the OTS sample
changed from 20 examinations to 16 exams.

cOur initial sample of mutual funds was based on data provided by SEC that
included examinations of transfer agents in which anti-money laundering
compliance was not required to be a part of the examination. Therefore, we
had to drop four transfer agents that we had initially selected in our
sample. Also, our sample of mutual funds picked up a Unit Investment
Trust, which is not subject to anti-money laundering rules at this time
and so we dropped it from our sample. Overall, the original sample of 11
mutual fund entities was reduced to 6.

dTwo examinations in the NFA sample were dropped because one firm was
withdrawing its registration and the other examination was a limited scope
exam on the firm's financial position; therefore, these examinations
should not have been in the sample.

After selecting our sample of examinations, we requested the examination
reports and related workpapers associated with each examination from each
of the regulators and SROs. We developed a data collection instrument to
review the examination documentation. The data collection

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

instrument was developed by reviewing the regulation requirements for CIP
and section 314 and the examination procedures developed by the regulators
and SROs. After each examination was reviewed once using the data
collection instrument, a second person reviewed the examination using the
data collection instrument a second time to ensure the reliability of our
coding of the review questions and accuracy of data entry. We used the
results from the data collection instrument to determine how the
regulators and SROs reviewed compliance and how regulators and SROs dealt
with deficiencies and violations related to CIP and section 314. We also
identified formal enforcement actions that were completed during the time
of our review and included violations of CIP or section 314 regulations.
Finally, we interviewed officials from FinCEN, the federal financial
regulators, and SROs about their examination and enforcement policies.

To determine how these new regulations have and could improve law
enforcement investigations and prosecutions of money laundering and
terrorist activities, we interviewed officials representing several law
enforcement agencies, including the FBI and ICE, and Department of Justice
officials. We interviewed supervisory prosecutors from two U.S. Attorneys
offices as well as supervisory officials at the Asset Forfeiture and Money
Laundering Section and the Counter-Terrorism Section at the Department of
Justice who have been involved with money laundering and terrorist cases
and had experience with section 314 and CIP to better understand the
factors that are considered when deciding whether to prosecute a money
laundering or terrorist financing case. We also reviewed information that
FinCEN collects from law enforcement agencies on the results of the 314(a)
process.

We conducted our work in New York City, NY; Chicago, IL; and Washington,
D.C., between February 2004 and March 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the Treasury

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury

Appendix III

Comments from the National Credit Union Administration

Appendix IV

Comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission

Appendix IV Comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission

Appendix V

                     GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts	Barbara I. Keller (202) 512-9624 Kay D. Kuhlman (202)
512-2755

Staff 	William Bates, Davi M. D'Agostino, David Nicholson, Carl Ramirez,
Omyra Ramsingh, Adam Shapiro, and Kaya Leigh Taylor made key contributions
to

  Acknowledgments this report.

Related Products

Anti-Money Laundering: Issues Concerning Depository Institution Regulatory
Oversight. GAO-04-833T. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2004.

Combating Money Laundering: Opportunities Exist to Improve the National
Strategy. GAO-03-813. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2003.

Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-03-89. Washington, D.C.:
December 2, 2002.

Interim Report on Internet Gambling. GAO-02-1101R. Washington, D.C.:
September 23, 2002.

Money Laundering: Extent of Money Laundering through Credit Cards is
Unknown. GAO-02-670. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2002.

Anti-Money Laundering: Efforts in the Securities Industry. GAO-02-111.
Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001.

Money Laundering: Oversight of Suspicious Activity Reporting at
Bank-Affiliated Broker-Dealers Ceased. GAO-01-474. Washington, D.C.: March
22, 2001.

Suspicious Banking Activities: Possible Money Laundering by U.S.
Corporations Formed for Russian Entities. GAO-01-120. Washington, D.C.:
October 31, 2000.

Money Laundering: Observations on Private Banking and Related Oversight of
Selected Offshore Jurisdictions. GAO/T-GGD-00-32. Washington, D.C.:
November 9, 1999.

Private Banking: Raul Salinas, Citibank, and Alleged Money Laundering.
GAO/T-OSI-00-3. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 1999.

Private Banking: Raul Salinas, Citibank, and Alleged Money Laundering.
GAO/OSI-99-1. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 1998.

Money Laundering: Regulatory Oversight of Offshore Private Banking
Activities. GAO/GGD-98-154. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 1998.

Money Laundering: FinCEN's Law Enforcement Support Role Is Evolving.
GAO/GGD-98-117. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 1998.

Related Products

Money Laundering: FinCEN Needs to Better Manage Bank Secrecy Act Civil
Penalties. GAO/GGD-98-108. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 1998.

Money Laundering: FinCEN's Law Enforcement Support, Regulatory, and
International Roles. GAO/GGD-98-83. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 1998.

Money Laundering: FinCEN Needs to Better Communicate Regulatory Priorities
and Timelines. GAO/GGD-98-18. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 1998.

Private Banking: Information on Private Banking and Its Vulnerability to
Money Laundering. GAO/GGD-98-19R. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 1997.

Money Laundering: A Framework for Understanding U.S. Efforts Overseas.
GAO/GGD-96-105. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 1996.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***