FinCEN has submitted an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for publication in the September 17, 2020, Federal Register seeking public comment on potential regulatory amendments to establish that all covered financial institutions subject to an anti-money laundering program requirement must maintain an “effective and reasonably designed” anti-money laundering program.

More at https://www.bankersonline.com/topstory/165829

I vote no. I don't need FinCEN issuing edicts on their current pet projects. " list of national AML priorities, to be called FinCEN’s Strategic Anti-Money Laundering Priorities, every two years."

I would prefer better guidance from FinCen rather than a regulator fresh out in the field deciding what the banks requirements should be.

I have a much easier time dealing with green regulators, especially when they can't provide any documentation supporting their claims over having to change the BSA program every 2 years to address the current pet project

I vote no as well. The regulation is intentionally vague and gives us smaller BSA officers the ability to deal with regulators and their baseless claims of issues without supporting documentation. Having to change every two years based on current climate would be crazy, especially for bigger banks.

I'd encourage everyone in this forum to read and either directly comment or write-in their feedback to an industry group like the ABA.

These recommendations mirror Wolfsberg's recent effectiveness recommendations and as FinCEN mentions, BSAAG members. I can't speak to the latter's demographics, but Wolfsberg is for the big boys. I fear that community banks lack a voice in this discussion.

Personally, IMHO, the concepts of codifying the RA and providing a national priorities list would be useful. But the devil will be in the details. My prediction is that all FI's will be forced to complete a modified version of the OCC MLR, which is a frustrating process because the data is never adequately put to use. Also, if they're serious about efficiency, maybe it's time FinCEN worked with the FFIEC to see how already existing bank reporting data can be leveraged for more objective risk assessing.

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that the consensus seems to be that BSA Officers would rather deal with rogue examiners operating within the vagueness of the regulation than to have regulation clarified and having the guidance to form your program to the regulation. That's not to say that the proposed regulation would solve the problem or that additional risk-based questions wouldn't come out of it, but this in conjunction with the manual update, statements on supervisory guidance, and published guidance on penalties all are intended to allow banks to push back harder on examiners giving instruction outside of regulation.

I would think that the requirement to develop a risk assessment would affect very few people who are posting here. If the specific FinCEN priorities don't apply to your bank, you can just state your reasoning in the RA and move on. If they do, there's at least a bit of ammunition you earn by shifting your resources to those if you have minor or technical findings elsewhere.

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that the consensus seems to be that BSA Officers would rather deal with rogue examiners operating within the vagueness of the regulation than to have regulation clarified and having the guidance to form your program to the regulation. That's not to say that the proposed regulation would solve the problem or that additional risk-based questions wouldn't come out of it, but this in conjunction with the manual update, statements on supervisory guidance, and published guidance on penalties all are intended to allow banks to push back harder on examiners giving instruction outside of regulation.

Agreed

At least those BSA Officers with some experience with the government and regulations enough to know there is always vagueness to some degree and asking for clarity often leads to a clunkier and more labor intensive product. There will always be rogue examiners....that is why they are called rogue, it is up to us to know the law and position ourselves in a defensible position.

I agree and I like the way you phrased that. I do still believe that giving examiners more instruction on how to determine whether a bank's BSA program is aligned with their risk is helpful, and if that instruction is anywhere other than codified in regulation, nothing changes.