Sign up today and take advantage of member-only content — the kind of timely, cutting edge industry insight that only Money Management Executive can deliver.
  • Exclusive Online Only Content
  • Free Daily Email News Alerts
  • Asset Management Blogs

Yet Another Regulatory Deadline Looms: Complexities Pervade Anti-Money Laundering Measures


Seemingly lost amid the fervor over the Securities and Exchange Commission's redemption fee rule, its recent guidance on soft dollars, and reports from chief compliance officers to mutual fund boards is yet another regulatory deadline that the money management industry must soon meet: anti-money laundering measures.

Not unlike its peers, anti-money laundering regulations have been met with some degree of trepidation. Most funds and advisors embrace the intent of the rule, which is to thwart terrorists and other criminals from laundering or making money for nefarious activities in U.S. capital markets, but some of its finer details have drawn concern.

Specifically, Section 312 of the rule demands that funds and their advisors perform due diligence to ensure that an anti-money laundering, or AML, program is operational and effective, either in-house or at the agent that conducts trades on their behalf. In other words, the Federal government is demanding that money managers know their customers.

That process, however, can be time consuming and costly. For starters, there's a significant technology investment, as well as extensive employee training to spot suspect investors and transactions. As a result of these demands, the industry has been slow to fully meet the rule's requirements.

Further complicating matters is what appears to be a redundancy in the rule. In short, a fund or advisor must "know its customers," but sometimes that due diligence has already been performed at, for example, a broker/dealer or a bank.

"The concern among funds is logistics," said Robert Tull, a senior consultant with SEC Compliance Consultants in Philadelphia. "There is an aspect of it that is technically intensive, an aspect that is manually intensive, and when you're dealing with situations where you might duplicate work, everyone wants to make it as efficient as possible. They want to strike the perfect balance."

A short list of what's expected from the money management industry, according to Tull, is the development of internal policies, procedures and controls reasonably designed to prevent the advisor from being used to finance terrorists activities; the designation of an AML officer, who would be responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the program; an ongoing employee training program; and independent testing for compliance with AML regulations.

And again not unlike its peers, the AML rule does not allow funds or advisors to shirk responsibility onto a service provider that has been given responsibility for running an AML program.

"Much in the spirit of other compliance rules, just because a fund has a service provider doesn't mean they are not responsible for ensuring that the service provider has an adequate and effective AML program," Tull said.

This situation led powerful industry lobbyists like the Investment Company Institute and the Securities Industry Association to urge postponement of the rule by the U.S. Treasury, which, along with the SEC, the NASD and various other state entities, is tasked with its enforcement. The Treasury recently granted their requests, pushing the date ahead from April 2 to July 5. Any further extension isn't likely, said Treasury spokeswoman Candice Pratsch.

The chief stumbling block for the industry has been a tiny piece of unfamiliar language that's contained in Section 312. The rule states that funds must perform due diligence on "correspondent accounts." Typically a foreign financial institution, these accounts are higher risk areas where, in short, the Treasury is asking funds "to know their customers even better." But it's a banking term that has had a lot of funds and advisors scratching their heads.

"It's just not a rule we're familiar with," said Bob Grohowski, senior counsel for international affairs at the ICI. "[Funds] don't have a lot of these accounts. They're usually held at a U.S. broker/dealer."

So to avoid any redundancies, the ICI submitted another request to the Treasury asking that it exclude accounts cleared and settled through the National Security Clearing Corp.'s FundServ system. The ICI contends that due diligence on FundServ accounts would have already been performed by another NSCC member firm, most likely a broker/dealer. So, in short, the ICI asked that all FundServ accounts be treated as domestic accounts, even if the trades were affected for a foreign institution. It would be a sizeable chunk of work, too, as FundServ handles about 475,000 trades each day that amount to about $7.5 billion.

"What we're saying is if it's a foreign institution, we'll do everything asked of us, but if they're not, the broker/dealer should perform the due diligence," Grohowski said.

That request was recently granted, and now the industry is wrestling with identifying foreign accounts, another task that's not as easy as it might seem.