In recent years white-collar criminal enforcement has been marked by a string of high-profile prosecutions of banks for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, the most recent against BNP Paribas.1 The BSA, enacted in 1970, requires domestic financial institutions to establish and maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) programs. The law has been amended over time, notably following the 9/11 attacks, to enhance AML requirements and widen the range of institutions required to have AML programs.
Notwithstanding a series of multi-billion dollar settlements, the government’s enforcement efforts have met with criticism.2 In addition to claiming that the banks themselves have not been sufficiently punished, critics have lamented that individuals are not being held accountable for criminal conduct—a common complaint about government enforcement efforts since the 2007-08 financial crisis.3 In fact, individuals have been prosecuted for BSA violations, but not in the recent cases against global financial institutions that have captured media headlines.
