Research On Financial Regulation And Criminal Enforcement Of Money Service Businesses
Financial Regulation & Criminal Enforcement of Money Service Businesses (MSBs)
Money Service Businesses (MSBs) include money transmitters, currency exchangers, check cashers, and similar entities that handle monetary transactions. MSBs are high-risk for money laundering, fraud, and terrorist financing, so regulators enforce strict compliance through AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements. Criminal enforcement occurs when MSBs fail to comply or engage in illicit activity.
1. FinCEN v. Liberty Exchange, Inc. (USA, 2007)
Facts:
Liberty Exchange, a money transmitter, processed millions of dollars in international wire transfers without proper reporting and recordkeeping. Regulators discovered that they often facilitated transactions for clients engaged in illicit activity.
Legal Issues:
Violations of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting requirements.
Corporate liability for failure to implement AML compliance programs.
Judgment:
Liberty Exchange was fined over $1 million.
Management was required to implement strict compliance policies and undergo audits.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of transaction monitoring and AML compliance in MSBs.
Reinforced that even small MSBs are subject to criminal and civil enforcement.
2. United States v. Western Union (USA, 2017)
Facts:
Western Union, one of the largest global money transfer companies, was accused of aiding fraudsters who used its network to defraud victims in consumer scams.
Legal Issues:
Willful failure to implement anti-fraud and AML controls.
Criminal liability under wire fraud and BSA regulations.
Judgment:
Western Union agreed to a $586 million settlement.
Required to strengthen monitoring, reporting, and internal controls.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even well-established MSBs face criminal enforcement if compliance is inadequate.
Showed regulators’ focus on fraud prevention and consumer protection.
3. FinCEN v. Liberty Reserve (USA, 2013)
Facts:
Liberty Reserve operated a digital currency MSB, facilitating anonymous transfers for users globally. It was used for illegal activities, including money laundering, credit card fraud, and narcotics sales.
Legal Issues:
Operating an unlicensed MSB.
Money laundering and conspiracy to commit financial crimes.
Judgment:
Founder Arthur Budovsky was arrested and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Liberty Reserve was shut down, assets seized, and transactions frozen.
Significance:
Highlighted criminal liability for unlicensed MSBs.
Exposed gaps in digital currency regulation and led to stricter oversight of cryptocurrency platforms.
4. United States v. OneCoin (Global, 2019)
Facts:
OneCoin was marketed as a cryptocurrency but functioned as a Ponzi scheme. MSB operators facilitated international transfers of funds from victims.
Legal Issues:
Unlicensed MSB operations.
Fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges.
Judgment:
Founder Ruja Ignatova remains at large, but other executives were prosecuted and convicted.
Millions of dollars were seized by authorities.
Significance:
Reinforced regulatory gaps in cryptocurrency MSBs.
Led to increased AML scrutiny of virtual asset service providers.
5. FinCEN v. Western Remittance Company (USA, 2012)
Facts:
A small regional MSB was found to be transmitting funds without proper records, failing to report suspicious activity, and serving high-risk clients.
Legal Issues:
Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.
Criminal liability for directors and owners who ignored compliance obligations.
Judgment:
The company was fined and placed under strict regulatory supervision.
Owners faced personal liability for deliberate non-compliance.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even small-scale MSBs cannot operate outside regulatory frameworks.
Highlighted the role of audits, transaction monitoring, and KYC.
6. UK Case: HMRC v. Money Service Business Operators (2019)
Facts:
Several UK-based MSBs were investigated for facilitating money laundering by failing to implement AML checks.
Legal Issues:
Violations under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017.
Corporate and individual criminal liability for non-compliance.
Judgment:
Fines totaling several million pounds were imposed.
Senior managers were prosecuted for negligence in AML controls.
Significance:
Reinforced the global nature of MSB compliance obligations.
Highlighted the need for proactive enforcement and training in AML regulations.
7. AUSTRAC v. Westpac Banking Corporation (Australia, 2019)
Facts:
Westpac, a major bank providing MSB services, failed to report over 19 million transactions for child exploitation and money laundering risks.
Legal Issues:
Violations of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act.
Corporate liability for failure to implement proper controls.
Judgment:
Fined AUD 1.3 billion, one of the largest AML penalties globally.
Required to overhaul compliance systems and appoint independent auditors.
Significance:
Demonstrated that large institutions offering MSB services are heavily scrutinized.
Showed the consequences of systemic compliance failures.
Key Takeaways
MSBs are high-risk financial entities: They can facilitate fraud, money laundering, or terrorism financing if not properly regulated.
Regulation exists but enforcement is critical: Authorities worldwide (FinCEN, HMRC, AUSTRAC) actively monitor MSBs for compliance.
Corporate and individual liability: Owners, managers, and operators can face criminal charges if they fail to implement AML/KYC controls.
Small or digital MSBs are equally accountable: Cases like Liberty Reserve and OneCoin highlight digital and small-scale MSBs are not exempt.
Penalties are severe: Fines, criminal charges, seizure of assets, and operational shutdowns are common consequences.
RELATED Blog
comments