Liberty fined $600,000 for AML breach
NEW YORK – US regulators imposed a $600,000 civil fine on the Manhattan-based Liberty Bank in mid-May. The bank, which focuses on Korean-American customers, was upbraided for violations of federal and state anti-money laundering laws in a statement issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the New York State Banking Department. Liberty did not admit wrongdoing.
Liberty itself is being acquired by Los Angles' Wilshire Bancorp – which also serves Korean-American customers – for $15.7 million of cash and stock. Final regulatory approval for the deal was received in April.
The regulators said Liberty Bank had failed to implement an adequate Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering programme, with internal controls and appropriate measures to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activity in a timely manner. The regulators also found that systemic defects in Liberty Bank's anti-money laundering programme resulted in a failure to comply with information-sharing requests from law enforcement under section 314(a) of the USA Patriot Act.
"Today's action against Liberty Bank of New York is a great example of what can be accomplished when state and federal regulators share information," says Diana Taylor, New York state banking superintendent. "The memorandum of understanding signed by the banking department and FinCEN in April 2005 has greatly improved regulators' and law enforcements' ability to take action against institutions that violate the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws."
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU officials tamp down hopes for bank capital relief
Capital cuts are not a done deal in EC’s review of competitiveness, despite US deregulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision