Treasury department proposal could affect client trust accounts

May 9, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Bar Association is asking the U.S. Department of Treasury to reconsider possible rule changes announced in February that are aimed at tackling money laundering and terrorist financing. The bar association believes the proposals would impose “unreasonable and excessive” burdens on law firms.

The ABA sent a letter to the treasury department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network May 4, urging FinCEN not to proceed with proposed rules on customer due diligence requirements for financial institutions. The proposed rules would establish a categorical requirement for financial institutions to indentify beneficial ownership of their accountholders, subject to risk-based verification and pursuant to an alternative definition ownership as described in the proposals. The question of beneficial ownership can arise in the context of accounts created by an individual or entity, which could include a law firm or accounting firm, in which these firms could be acting on behalf of another person without disclosing that fact.

The proposals, according to the ABA, would require law firms that have client trust accounts at financial institutions to disclose the identity and other ownership information regarding the clients.

“If adopted in their current form, those proposals could impose unreasonable and excessive burdens on many law firms with client trust accounts and could undermine both the confidential lawyer-client relationship and traditional state court regulation of lawyers,” wrote Kevin L. Shepherd, chair of the ABA’s task force on gatekeeper regulation and the profession.

He cites the ABA’s Voluntary Good Practices Guidance for Attorneys to Detect and Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing that the ABA House of Delegates adopted in August 2010 as a way for attorneys to address the issues raised in the proposals without following “burdensome and rigid ‘one-size-fits all’” rules.

Shepherd believes the proposals would undermine the client-lawyer relationship and confidentiality under ABA Model Rule 1.6 and corresponding state rules.

FinCen announced last week it has extended its comment period on these proposals. Follow this link  to learn how to submit comment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT