On August 25, 2016, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, proposed a rule that would require all banks, regardless of whether they are subject to regulation by a “Federal functional regulator,” to establish and implement written AML programs, conduct ongoing customer due diligence, and identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of their legal entity customers. The proposal would also extend customer identification program requirements to banks not covered under existing rules.

Last week the Supreme Court further clarified the procedures and limits regarding the government’s ability to freeze assets in connection with criminal prosecutions. Following the 2014 decision in Kaley v. United States, where the Court ruled (in the government’s favor) that a defendant could not challenge the legality of a pre-trial asset seizure by contesting the grand jury’s determination of probable cause, last week the Court added to the body of law on asset forfeiture by siding with defendants and limiting the government’s ability to freeze “untainted” assets. The Court’s March 30, 2016 decision in Luis v. U.S. holds that the government’s pre-trial freeze of “untainted” assets (meaning money not connected to the alleged crimes) violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by choice.