Regarding the cases within the United States court system, the ABA report goes on to highlight two more cases in which civil penalties were awarded, in the sum of a $8 million and an $7 million sanction . The first case within this pair, involving Zions First National Bank, a Utah financial institution, was a result of their violation of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 . According to FinCEN, the purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act is to ensure that financial institutions preserve records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, make reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (day cumulative total), and report suspicious behavior that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other illegal acts, according to the statute . This case was of particular note within the narrative of successful money laundering prosecution because it highlighted the evolving methods of bad faith actors through the misuse of remote deposit capture technology . Similar to the Banco Popular case, however, Zions Bank conspiracy to commit fraud and launder money was so widespread and conspicuous, their prosecution could almost be seen as an inevitability. However, victories of enforcement are victories nonetheless and the clear monetary consequence for the financial institution should not go unnoticed.

In the Pacific National Bank case, the latter institution mentioned above, FinCEN fined the organization $7 million for their failure to comply with the BSA . Specifically, Pacific National, a bank based in Miami, Florida, refused to report suspicious activity to FinCEN, they failed to update FinCEN on the activity of accounts held by non-US individuals, they did not meet the due diligence requirement, and they refused to audit high-risk transactions . Furthermore, additional penalties were executed by FinCEN towards individuals within the bank . However, these penalties were relatively nominal and were below $15,000 . This is consistent with how the courts have been ruling in this cluster of cases. Although the multimillion dollar fine may have had some impact on the bottom line for the bank as a whole, it is hard to believe that the penalties against the bank employees had a punitive effect. It would not be unreasonable to raise the inference that the bad actors at the bank put themselves outside of the law in exchange for several thousand dollars, so such a fine likely did not even negate their actions. However, this raises a larger question as to the purpose of punishment and whether the powers and purpose of FinCEN should extend that far. Given the pervasive theme of protecting individuals, more specifically within the scope of personal information, the courts, regardless, would likely reject an argument to increase the scope of FinCEN in such a manner.

In order to evaluate the ways in which specific individuals and independent organizations, like groups connected to organized crime, impede effective prosecution of crimes of corruption, money laundering, and tax evasion, it is useful to understand the relationship between these organizations and such crimes. In an educational module released by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime titled Infiltration of Organized Crime in Business and Government, the UNODC specifically highlights the interwoven relationship between organized crime and money laundering, the impact that organized crime and corruption has on the prosecution of such crimes, and the ways in which crime syndicates utilize legal entities (described as “legal persons”) to evade liability . In an explanation of the inseverable connection between organized crime and money laundering, given the necessity for secrecy and clandestineness in organizations like the La Cosa Nostra, the UN’s educational manual also cites the diverse ways in which money is often laundered. Referencing a report from the National Crime Squad of the Netherlands Police Agency, the use of not only illicit markets, but also common businesses, like restaurants, and the use of independent professional money launderers were detailed . Such a comment by the UN was interesting because many successful instances of prosecution of money laundering in the United States involved medium-to-large sized financial institutions and less of what was described above. This raises an implication that these crime syndicates are either more successful at existing outside of government scrutiny or that they are using methods of corruption to evade prosecution.

Citing Section 7of the UN Organized Crime Convention of 2000, money laundering counter measures are identified, which then provides a comparison to the methods taken by the US previously discussed. Interestingly, the UN takes a more pedagogical approach in recommending strategies for enforcing anti-money laundering laws. In their educational manual, they deconstruct the money laundering process into three distinct stages in which a governing body can intervene. The first stage they identify is the “placement” or movement of illicit funds, followed by “layering” or covering the path the funds have taken, and finally “integration” or comminglingly the money in a way that allows it to become accessible to the bad actor . On that last point, the integration stage, the United States has recently amended its federal laws regarding the comminglingly of funds in an attempt to hide it from governmental detection, which does emphasize a good-faith effort to place the advisement of intergovernmental organizations into action.

The use of “legal persons” as a mechanism to evade detection by the government is in many ways similar to the concerns addressed by the Corporate Transparency Act regarding increased scrutiny for beneficial owners in recently registered corporations and LLCs . The UN makes a point to draw a distinction between natural persons and legal ones, an interesting departure from that found in the language of the CTA . In Article 10 of the Organized Crime Convention, the parties of the convention agree to place liability on legal persons in violation of money laundering and anti-corruption laws, either on the criminal, civil, or administrative level . The UN further addresses some concerns that arise from this enforcement standard, particularly regarding discrepancies in legal systems . This raises a fascinating question of enforcement given that matters of finance can have ideologically different starting points across nations. Even just within commercial and contract law, nations will experience a variety of different approaches to how the courts will address the matter.