Into the Breach: Voluntary
Compliance on Money Laundering Gets a Boost from the ABA and Treasury
By Michael A. Lindenberger
It was early April 2006, and attorney Scott D. McCreary had an uneasy
feeling about the $38.5 million sitting in his firm’s escrow account
awaiting transfer to the seller of a long-range Gulfstream G-V jet. McCreary,
who leads the aviation practice group for McAfee & Taft in Oklahoma City,
knew that the owner of the firm seeking to buy the jet was Teodoro Obiang, the
son of the dictator who has ruled the small west African state of Equatorial
Guinea for more than three decades, and he wanted to know more about the source
of that money.
McCreary sent an email to Obiang’s agents stating that the firm would
return the money unless they could satisfy his misgivings. The documentation he
requested was never delivered, and back went the money—all $38.5 million
of it.
Obiang, the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation for
corruption that includes illegally passing more than $100 million of his
country’s wealth into the United States, found another escrow agent to
handle the transaction, and within two weeks the plane was his.
Nevertheless, McAfee’s handling of the matter, despite the lack of any
mandatory requirements governing his actions, was hailed as model behavior four
years later during a U.S. Senate hearing focusing on how actions—or
inactions—by lawyers and other professionals can facilitate illegal
money-laundering efforts by international criminals and terrorists. Indeed, the
aborted jet deal was exactly the kind of big-dollar transaction by high-risk
foreign nationals that the Justice Department, and Congress, want lawyers to do
more to prevent in the future.
At the hearing in February 2010, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., expressed
concerns about the role of lawyers and other nonfinancial gatekeepers.
“Those engaged in large-scale corruption want access to U.S. banks, and
it is our job to stop them, to keep foreign corruption out of the United
States,” Levin said. “It is not an easy job. With the help of U.S.
lawyers, real estate and escrow agents, lobbyists and others, politically
powerful foreign officials—and those close to them—have found ways
to use the U.S. financial system to protect and enhance their ill-gotten
gains.”
There is widespread support in government, legal organizations, other
gatekeeper professions and the financial industry for efforts to prevent money
laundering by criminal and terrorist groups. In August 2010, for instance, the
ABA’s policymaking House of Delegates adopted a recommendation stating in
part that the association “acknowledges and supports the United States
government’s efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist
financing.”
The question for the ABA and other bar groups is whether they can encourage
lawyers to carry out enough voluntary diligence regarding money laundering by
clients to satisfy policymakers, or whether pressure to impose government rules
that have been implemented in some other nations will become reality in the
U.S. as well.
Although Levin and some other members of Congress have favored mandatory
anti-money-laundering rules for lawyers, there appears to be a general
willingness, for now, to give voluntary efforts a chance to work.
PLENTY OF GUIDANCE
The ABA House of Delegates endorsed the voluntary approach in its policy
action in August 2010, which adopted recommendations developed by the Task
Force on Gatekeeper Regulation and the Profession in collaboration with several
ABA sections and specialty bar associations.
The policy supports a “risk-based” approach grounded in the
premise that limited resources available to combat money laundering and
terrorist financing “should be employed and allocated in the most
efficient manner possible so that the sources of the greatest risks receive the
most attention,” states the report supporting the task force’s
recommendation to the House.
To help lawyers implement a risk-based approach to conducting client due
diligence and other anti-money-laundering steps, the task force developed the
Voluntary Good Practices Guidance for Lawyers to Detect and Combat Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing—the Good Practices Guidance (PDF) for
short—which the House adopted.
The risk-based approach is in accord with guidelines developed by the
Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering created by the U.S. and other
leading industrialized nations. The FATF issued an action plan for combating
money laundering, known as the 40 Recommendations. After the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, the FATF issued nine special recommendations for
dealing with terrorist financing. The combined 40 + 9 Recommendations are
considered the international standard for anti-money-laundering efforts. In
2008, the FATF adopted a Lawyer Guidance to provide a broad framework for
implementing its recommendations. (Similar guidelines have been published
separately for other gatekeeper professions.)
The goal of the Good Practices Guidance “is to assist members of the
legal profession in the United States in designing and implementing effective
risk-based approaches consistent with the broad contours of the Lawyer
Guidance,” states the 2010 report by the gatekeeper task force to the
House of Delegates.
But the report also states that a key purpose of the Good Practices Guidance
is to encourage voluntary actions by lawyers against money laundering,
“thereby negating the need for federal regulation of the legal
profession.”
The idea of mandatory due diligence, and especially that of reporting on
clients without their knowledge, has met significant resistance from the U.S.
legal profession, which is worried about the impact on attorney-client
privilege and client confidentiality.
The Good Practices Guidance represents a serious effort by the ABA to
encourage lawyers to do more to prevent money laundering, says Kevin L.
Shepherd of Baltimore, who chairs the gatekeeper task force. “We are
working with the U.S. Treasury and believe this is a sensible approach to this
issue of combating terrorism financing and money laundering,” says
Shepherd, who co-chairs the real estate practice group at the Venable law firm.
“Lawyers already perform some level of client due diligence, such as the
client’s ability to pay and whether conflicts exist, so this is an
extension of the client intake review process.”
The new guidance urges lawyers to assess the money-laundering risk from
three vantage points: the nature of the client, the nature of the legal work
involved, and where the business is taking place. “That will be a change
to be sure,” Shepherd says, “but it’s a practical step given
the possible unattractive alternative of federal law imposing mandatory anti-money-laundering
obligations on the legal profession.”
A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR
The Treasury Department has encouraged ABA efforts in the area. “In
the course of facilitating a range of legitimate commercial transactions for
their clients, legal professionals may be at risk of facilitating serious
crimes, including the money-laundering activities of illicit actors who seek to
exploit such services,” says Daniel L. Glaser, the assistant secretary
for terrorist financing in Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence. “We welcome the American Bar Association’s
recognition of this threat and the need for greater action to protect the legal
profession from this threat as part of our broader efforts to protect the
financial system from abuse. We look forward to continuing our cooperative
efforts with the legal profession to address this ongoing challenge.”
The Treasury Department and the ABA also are working together to boost the
legal profession’s awareness of how lawyers can sometimes become involved
in international financial crimes and developing educational programs to help
them recognize and deal with those situations.
In April, then-ABA President Stephen N. Zack of Miami sent a letter (PDF) to other bar presidents asking them to urge
their members to follow the ABA’s Good Practices Guidance. He said those
measures are “the most effective means of both combating money laundering
and avoiding the passage of federal legislation or adoption of rules that would
impose unnecessary, costly and burdensome new regulations on lawyers and the
legal profession, and adversely affect the clients that we serve.”
Without a strong voluntary commitment, mandatory government measures still
could come into play, caution experts in the field.
“Where I am with this is that it’s reality, so we have to deal
with it,” says Laurel S. Terry, a law professor at Pennsylvania State
University. “The profession really has a stake in wholesale embracing of
the voluntary guidelines.” Otherwise, she says, “the government
could decide to intervene and do something more drastic.”
Reprinted with permission from the October 1, 2011 issue
of ABA Journal.
Copyright 2011, ABA Journal. All rights reserved.
License # ABA24068