September 2010

A look into money laundering

In U.S. law, money laundering is the process of engaging in financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of illegally gained money. It is believed that the term “money laundering” originated from the Mafia’s ownership of Laundromats whereby large sums of money were made through illegitimate activities that showed origination from a legitimate-appearing business.

The U.S. Criminal Code contains more than 100 predicate offenses to the crime of money laundering, which include drug trafficking, smuggling, prostitution rings, illegal arms sales, embezzlement, insider trading, bribery, and computer fraud. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considers money laundering a “tax evasion in progress.” And when no other crimes could be pinned to Al Capone, the IRS obtained a conviction for tax evasion. Leaving the courthouse, Capone said, “This is preposterous. You can’t tax illegal income!” Had the money laundering statutes been in effect in the 1930s, Capone also would have been charged with this crime. However, since October 1986, with the passage of the Money Laundering Control Act, organized crime members and many others have been convicted of both tax evasion and money laundering.

One of the most notable money laundering cases was settled in March of this year. Wachovia Bank, which is owned by Wells Fargo & Co., reached a $160 million settlement with the Justice Department over allegations that a failure in bank controls enabled drug traffickers to launder drug money by transferring $420 billion from Mexican currency-exchange houses to the bank. Under a deferred-prosecution agreement, Wachovia “admitted failure to identify, detect, and report suspicious transactions in third-party payment processor accounts.”

And money laundering has even reached the Vatican. Media reports from the past week say that the Vatican Bank, along with its chairman Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and director general, Paolo Cipriani, have been targeted for alleged violations of money laundering laws. Italian authorities temporarily froze 23 million euros ($30 million) from an account registered to the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) a.k.a. the Vatican Bank. The investigation was opened after the Bank of Italy, adhering to anti-money-laundering directives issued by the European Union, alerted officials to two suspicious transfers on September 6, 2010. The Holy See expressed surprise at the allegations.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Decisions in two cases to set precedence for auditors’ fraud liability

It all started in 1905 with the lawsuit Smith v. London Assurance Corporation whereby an auditor was held liable for failing to audit its client’s branch office and detecting embezzlement.

Now more than 100 years later, the legal liability of auditors in detecting corporate fraud will be decided in two cases that were heard on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, in the New York Court of Appeals, potentially increasing the Big Four accountants’ exposure to multibillion-dollar shareholder lawsuits for malpractice. In both cases, the court will rule whether auditors can rely on the legal doctrine of in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) to reject claims for fraud allegedly committed by company insiders. The doctrine prevents someone from recovering damages from a defendant if that someone is also at fault. The argument is whether the shareholders, as owners of the company, can be held at fault for frauds committed within the company and barred from suing its auditors for not discovering the wrongdoing.

The first lawsuit facing scrutiny was filed by the shareholders of AIG against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the insurer’s auditor. The shareholders claim that PwC failed in its job as auditors in the early 2000s, when various AIG officers and directors, including ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions to pad AIG’s bottom line. Authorities subsequently caught the fraud, and AIG had to restate years of financial statements that “eventually reduced stockholder equity by $3.5 billion.” AIG ended up paying more than $1.5 billion in fines, and the shareholders say that since PwC missed the fraud, they should be allowed to sue PwC for malpractice. The Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed their request to sue PwC, and the case was appealed in Delaware’s Supreme Court. That court asked the New York’s Court of Appeals to decide whether the shareholders have a claim under New York law.

The second case relates to protracted litigation by the bankruptcy trustee of Refco Inc., the failed futures broker, seeking damages from a number of the firm’s professional advisers, and auditors including Grant Thornton, KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mayer Brown, LLP, et al. The trustee alleges that Refco’s outside counsel Mayer Brown, and several other insiders are liable for defrauding Refco’s creditors by helping the defunct company conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollectible debt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trustee’s argument to revive claims against the corporate insiders raised unresolved questions concerning his standing under New York law to sue third-parties for Refco’s fraud.

|Fraud, Judgment|

Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act (096-1426)

Effective January 1, 2011, the Act will prohibit employers, in many circumstances, from inquiring about or using an employee’s or prospective employee’s credit history as a basis for employment, recruitment, discharge, or compensation. The Act also will prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a person who files a complaint under the Act, participates in an investigation, proceeding or action concerning a violation of the Act, or opposes violation of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, an employer will not:

Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual’s credit history or credit report.
Inquire about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history.
Order or obtain an applicant’s or employee’s credit report from a consumer reporting agency.

Exceptions to the Act are as follows:

State or federal law requires bonding or other security covering the individual holding the position.
Duties of the position include custody of or unsupervised access to cash or marketable assets valued at $2,500 or more.
Duties of the position include signatory power over business assets of over $100 or more per transaction.
Position is managerial, and involves setting the direction or control of the business.
Position involves access to personal or confidential information, financial information, trade secrets, or state or federal national security information.

The Act also states that nothing in its provisions shall prohibit employers from conducting a thorough background investigation which may include obtaining a consumer report and/or investigative report without information on credit history, as permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

The FCRA and Employer’s Obligations

In recent years, negligent hiring and retention lawsuits have seen a dramatic rise, with settlement payouts averaging over a million dollars. These cases are predicated on the theory that an employer may be held liable for its negligence in placing a person with certain known propensities for criminal or other unfit behavior in an employment position where the individual poses a threat to others. The most common defense against negligent hiring or retention actions is based on foreseeability, which is often determined through a background investigation. Some courts have been more flexible than others in damage awards, but regardless of their stance, the closer the connection between the perpetrator’s dangerous propensity and the actual tortious conduct, the stronger the case against the employer. The law in both negligent hiring and negligent retention also recognizes that a company’s duty to avoid employing dangerous people does not end when an individual is hired–it extends to negligent supervision, negligent training and negligent firing.

Nearly every investigation that touches on employment is covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which defines employment (purposes) as “evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” If an employer uses a third party screening service to conduct a background investigation of an applicant or employee, that company is considered a “consumer reporting agency” (CRA) under the FCRA. The CRA’s reports, known as consumer reports, may contain information from educational institutions, professional licensing boards, former employers, courts, credit bureaus, references, motor vehicle departments, regulatory entities, media sources, etc.

The FCRA is a complex federal statute that has been significantly revised since 1970. But the Act’s primary mandate remains that CRAs adhere to “reasonable procedures” to protect the confidentiality, accuracy, and relevance of consumer information. Under its Fair Information Practices, the FCRA has established rules concerning personal information that include rights of data quality (to access, dispute and correct), data security, usage limitations, data destruction, disclosures, user consent, and accountability. The FCRA requires the employer/user to affirm to the CRA that it is in compliance (with FCRA) and has enacted the following directives prior to the initiation of a consumer report:

Verified that there is a legitimate need for requesting a consumer report
Certified that written permission was obtained from the applicant or employee and proper disclosures were provided
Stated the reason for requesting a consumer report
Certified that the information will be used for employment purposes only.

Before any adverse action is taken based on information in the consumer report, the FCRA obligates the employer to provide the applicant or employee a copy of the report and summary of consumer rights prescribed by the FCRA. And if adverse action is taken, the employer must deliver an “adverse action notice” to the affected individual. Further, the employer must certify that it will not use any information from a consumer report in violation of the applicable federal or state equal opportunity laws and regulations.

The FCRA makes a distinction between a “consumer report” and “investigative consumer report.” Its delineation of a “consumer report” is that it is comprised of verifications of facts about education, employment or other claims made by the applicant, while an “investigative consumer report” is a compilation of information about character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living through interviews. Thus, an employer who uses investigative consumer reports must comply with the provisions of the FCRA that apply generally to consumer reports as well as the provisions that are specific to investigative consumer reports which include “clearly and accurately” disclosing in writing that it may obtain the aforementioned information. This notice must contain a statement advising the individual of the right to request additional disclosures concerning the nature and scope of the inquiry, along with a written summary of consumer rights. Also, for an investigative consumer report, the disclosure must be made within three days after such report is requested, while in a consumer report, notice must be given before the report is procured.

The FCRA rules also apply when an employer uses a third party to investigate employee misconduct. The employee must be notified “clearly and conspicuously” and authorize, in writing, the undertaking of an investigative consumer report. If the employer disciplines or adversely treats the employee based upon the information in the report, the employer must provide the employee, within 60 days of the adverse decision, the following:

Notice of the disciplinary action
Name, address and telephone phone number of third party that prepared the report
Statement that said third party had no input into the decision to discipline the employee and thus will not provide information about the action taken
Notice that the employee is entitled to a free copy of the report and can request that the employer state the reason for the disciplinary action.

The FCRA does not apply to investigations of misconduct conducted by internal personnel or by third parties which do not regularly prepare such reports.

Violations of the FCRA can lead to civil and/or criminal penalties for the CRA and the employer. Civil penalties may carry nominal damages (up to one thousand dollars if no actual damages exist), actual and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, if there is “willful noncompliance.” Civil penalties for “negligent noncompliance” are confined to actual damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Criminal penalties may be imposed when a party knowingly and willfully obtains information from a CRA under false pretenses.

Establishing a relationship with a reputable CRA is one of the best assurances of FCRA compliance. An experienced company can provide guidance not just in the legal process of the FCRA, but also instill trust that it has met its related obligations.