Two definitions to help you understand FinCEN’s customer due diligence requirements

first_img 11SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Jane Pannier Jane Pannier is Senior Vice President and in-house counsel for AffirmX LLC, a developer of an innovative remote compliance review solution. Ms. Pannier is also SVP of AdvisX, a CUSO … Web: www.affirmx.com Details Similar entity formed under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction opening the account.As is typically the case, the list of entities that are not considered to meet the definition is longer and includes:Natural persons opening accounts on their own behalf;Sole proprietorships;Unincorporated associations;Financial institutions that are either federally or state regulated;Trust accounts, other than statutory trusts created by a filing with a Secretary of State or similar office (although for trust accounts financial institutions are still expected to verify the identity of the trustees and for revocable trusts to gather information regarding the settlor, grantor, trustee and other persons with the authority or control over the account);Issuers of a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that are required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Act;Investment companies as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, that are registered with the SEC;Investment advisors, as defined in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Company Act, that are registered with the SEC;Exchanges or clearing agencies as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act, that are registered with the SEC;Any other entity registered with the SEC;Registered entities, commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors or major swap participants as defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange, that are registered with the SEC;Public accounting firms registered under section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;Bank holding companies, as defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 or savings and loan holding companies as defined in section 10(n) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act;Pooled investment vehicles that are operated or advised by a federally or state-regulated financial institution;State-regulated insurance companies;Financial market utilities designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act;Foreign financial institutions established in jurisdictions where the regulator of the institution maintains beneficial ownership information for the institution;Non-US governmental departments, agencies, or political subdivisions that engage only in governmental rather than commercial activities; andAny legal entity only to the extent that it opens a private banking account subject to section 1010.620 of the Bank Secrecy Act.Lastly, there is also a list of legal entities that are partially subject to the definition of a legal entity. This means that these entities can be beneficial owners if they meet the test of exercising control over the legal entity, but are not to be identified as beneficial owners based on their ownership interest.These entities are:Pooled investment vehicles that are operated or advised by a covered financial institution; andNonprofit corporations or similar entities that have filed organization documents with the appropriate State authority.Now that you know what FinCEN defines as a beneficial owner and a legal entity, you can review the legal entity accounts at your institution and begin to develop relevant due diligence procedures. Remember, the new rule is effective July 11, 2016, and compliance becomes mandatory starting May 11, 2018.For more information, read the complete text of the new rule. At present, credit unions are not required to know the identity of the individuals who own and/or control their legal entity customers or members. FinCEN and the federal law enforcement agencies have long seen this as a weakness in the BSA/AML programs that financial institutions are required to administer. On May 12, 2016, FinCEN introduced a new rule designed to address this concern by requiring financial institutions to look beyond the legal entity itself and to identify the individuals who own and/or control these legal entities.FinCEN’s rule requires that financial institutions establish and maintain written procedures that are designed to identify and verify the beneficial owners of their legal entity customers/members. In order to meet this requirement, you must know what FinCEN means when it talks about beneficial owners and legal entities.Beneficial OwnersThere are two prongs to the test for determining whether someone is a beneficial owner of a legal entity with an account at your credit union. An individual can be a beneficial owner based on his/her ownership position with the legal entity OR by having control over the legal entity.Prong 1: The Ownership TestA beneficial owner is an individual who directly or indirectly owns at least 25% of the equity interests in the legal entity member.* This ownership can come through any type of contract arrangement, understanding, relationship, or other means.When you examine legal entity accounts at your institution, you may find that there is more than one beneficial owner based on the ownership test. Conversely, you may not find any owners that meet the 25% test.*You are permitted, if you wish, to set a lower equity ownership threshold if desired for risk assessment purposes.Prong 2: The Control TestA beneficial owner is also a single individual who has the responsibility to control, manage or direct the legal entity member. For example, a beneficial owner might be an executive officer or a senior manager, or any individual who routinely performs similar functions. This list could include, but is not limited to:CEOs;CFOs;COOs;Managing members;General partners;Vice president; orIt is certainly possible that the same individual may meet the definition under both prongs of the test. However, there must always be one person identified as the beneficial owner under the control prong.As a side note, the new rule notes that if a trust owns at least a 25% equity interest in a legal entity, the trustee should be identified as a beneficial owner. If an entity that is exempt from the definition of a legal entity (see below) has an ownership interest of at least 25% in the legal entity, then you are not required to identify anyone from that exempt legal entity as a beneficial owner.Legal EntitiesNext, you need to know what is meant by a legal entity member. For the purpose of this rule, a legal entity could be a:Corporation;Limited liability company or other entity;Business trust that is created by the filing of a public document with the Secretary of State (or similar office),General partnership; or alast_img read more

Cricket News In e-mail to BCCI, Harmanpreet Kaur, Smriti Mandhana back Ramesh Powar, explain Mithali Raj’s omission

first_imgNew Delhi: India’s women T20I skipper Harmanpreet Kaur and vice-captain Smriti Mandhana on Monday reportedly wrote to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), urging it to let Ramesh Powar continue as the head coach of the team, days after the cricket board rolled out an advertisement to hire his replacement as his term ended on November 30.  In an e-mail to the BCCI, Harmanpreet and Mandhana said Powar brought a positive impact to the team after his appointment as the interim head coach in July, and that he should continue till the 2020 World Cup.“I am writing to bring it under your notice that how tremendously our team has gone under positive changes in the past few months and has set a benchmark in the world top teams. Our defeat in the semi-finals was very disheartening and it brings us all to feel more miserable to see how the controversies has stained our image and questioned the entire cricket fraternity, Hindustan Times quoted Harmanpreet as writing in her letter.Also Read | Ramesh Powar gets no extension, BCCI invites applications for coach of women’s cricket team“Sir Ramesh Powar not only improved us as players but did motivate us to set targets and challenge our own limits. He has changed the faced of Indian women’s cricket team both technically and strategically. He has inculcated in us the sense of winning,” she added.She also explained that Powar alone wasn’t behind Mithali Raj’s omission from the playing XI in the semi-final of the World T20.“The decision was entirely based on the cricketing logics and observations from the past. Keeping in mind the need of the hour, me, Smriti, selector Sudha Shah and the coach together in the presence of our manager felt that we should go ahead with the winning combination,” Harmanpreet wrote.“Cutting the conversation short, I, as the T20 captain and ODI vice-captain is appealing before you to allow Powar to further continue as our team coach. There are hardly 15 months for the next T20 World Cup and a month to go for the New Zealand tour. The way he has transformed us as a team, I feel no reason to replace him,” the captain further in the letter.Powar was involved in an ugly face-off with Mithali after India’s star player was benched for the semi-final of the ICC Women’s World T20 against England which India lost by eight wickets. Several officials in the Indian cricket board were not happy with the way how Powar dealt with the dropping of Mithali and that he acted on a ‘phone call’ from an influential board member to drop India’s leading run-getter.Also Read | Don’t let Virat Kohli be a bully: Ricky Ponting’s advice to Australia The situation involving Powar and Mithali flared up when Powar admitted that his professional relationship with Mithali was strained as he always found her aloof and difficult to handle. Earlier on Tuesday, Mithali slammed Committee of Administrators’ member Diana Edulji and Powar. Mithali said while Powar humiliated her during the ICC Women’s World T20, Edulji used her position against her.Afterwards, the 35-year-old cricketer tweeted, ‘’I’m deeply saddened & hurt by the aspersions cast on me. My commitment to the game & 20yrs of playing for my country, the hard work, sweat, in vain. Today, my patriotism doubted, my skill set questioned & all the mudslinging- it’s the darkest day of my life. May god give strength’’.According to several reports, Powar had no answer to defend his decision when he was asked why Mithali’s strike rate didn’t come in the way of her selection for the games against Ireland and Pakistan.Mithali’s exclusion took an ugly turn following the team’s loss in the semi-final, with the player’s manager calling Indian women’s cricket team skipper Harmanpreet a “manipulative, lying, immature, undeserving captain” in a series of tweets. Mithali’s manager, Annisha Gupta, spoke to ESPNCricinfo and confirmed that the tweets belonged to her handle and defended her statements. However, Gupta deleted the tweets later after the confirmation.The scenario regarding the women’s cricket team coaching has been dodgy. Tushar Arothe quit following differences with the senior players over training methods in August while the situation involving Powar has decimated the morale of the team and created differences between Mithali and Harmanpreet. For all the Latest Sports News News, Cricket News News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps.last_img read more

Water polo looks to recover from first season loss

first_imgAfter Stanford snapped USC’s 36-game win streak last weekend, the No. 2 Trojans look to recover in Berkeley this Saturday when they face No. 5 Cal. “We’re a really fast team, and we have a ton of really good shooters, so we need to push our counterattack more,” Hauschild said. “That’s something that I thought we did [really well] against Hawaii, and we could have done a lot better versus Stanford. I think that pushing the counterattack will be a big thing for us in trying to get one-on-nobody opportunities.” Cal has also struggled with limiting its opponents’ scoring opportunities. Its defense concedes an average of 8.65 goals per game, compared to the 4.14 goals on average the Trojans allowed on defense. Cal’s susceptibility on defense has resulted in several close contests this season, and is an area the Trojans must take advantage of to be successful this weekend. “We really need to improve our 5-on-6 defense and our defensive fast break,” sophomore driver Paige Hauschild said. “That’s how [Stanford] got several of their goals at the end. Those two things were our two major takeaways for when we play Cal because they’re also a really fast team and a really talented team with some good shooters.” The Stanford game was not the first time USC entered the final minutes of a game with a substantial lead that was threatened by its opponent. When they last faced Cal at the Barbara Kalbus Invitational in February, the Trojans amassed a three-goal lead with just five minutes left, but Cal mounted the pressure by scoring two late goals. Given Cal’s ability to come back late in games, it is important that the Trojans do not become complacent if they have a lead this Saturday. “The rest of the season, it’s getting down to the line,” Hauschild said. “We just want to go into NCAAs with the highest ranking we can, so it gives us the best opportunities in NCAAs. And [we want to] obviously just win the national championship.” The Trojans will play Cal Saturday at 1:30 p.m. in Berkeley. Following this game, the Trojans will have just two more conference matches before the postseason. Despite their dominant start to the season, the Trojans relinquished their spot on top of the NCAA rankings after losing to Stanford. Although USC was in command for much of the game, the Cardinal outscored them 4-1 in the fourth period to force overtime. “I think a big thing for us is just shutting down their key players,” Hauschild said. “[We need to force] some of their less experienced players to score their goals and put them in scoring situations.” Cal’s top scoring threat is junior attacker Emma Wright, who sits at second in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation with 2.86 goals per game this season. Despite Wright’s impressive scoring numbers, Cal ranks fourth out of the seven MPSF teams in goals scored per game with 10.71. In comparison, the Trojan offense averages 14.38 goals per game. Regardless, USC’s senior goalie Amanda Longan, the MPSF leader in both goals and saves, must deliver a peak performance this Saturday to silence Wright and Cal’s offense. Although the Trojans have defeated the Golden Bears in their last 18 meetings, Cal’s recent performance suggests they will put up a fight this weekend. The Bears are 13-4 on the season and are looking ahead for a conference win following their 5-6 loss to Hawaii this past weekend.last_img read more