Why Does the American Bar Association Oppose Beneficial Ownership Transparency Reform?

Posted on by
10

Right around the same time that this post appears on the blog, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on “Beneficial Ownership: Fighting Illicit International Financial Networks Through Transparency.” The main focus of the hearing will be on a pending bill, the True Incorporation for Transparency for Law Enforcement Act (TITLE Act). That bill’s major provisions do two main things:

  • First, subject to certain limited exceptions, the Act would require that every applicant wishing to form a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) in a U.S. State must provide that State with information on the true or “beneficial” owners of the company—that is, the live human beings who actually exercise control over, and/or receive substantial economic benefits from, these entities—and to keep this information updated. This information could then be requested by a law enforcement or other government agency, or by a financial institution conducting due diligence on a customer. Those applicants who don’t have a U.S. passport or driver’s license who want to form a corporation or LLC would have to apply through a U.S.-based “formation agent”; this agent would be responsible for verifying, maintaining, and updating information on the identity of the legal entity’s beneficial owners.
  • Second, the bill would also subject these “formation agents” to certain anti-money laundering (AML) rules applicable to financial institutions, including the requirements for establishing AML programs and filing suspicious activity reports (SARs) with the Treasury Department. However, the TITLE Act expressly exempts attorneys and law firms from this provision—provided that the attorney or law firm uses a separate formation agent in the U.S. when helping a client form a corporation or LLC. (The idea, as I understand it, is that the bill would avoid putting attorneys in the position of potentially having to file SARs on their own clients—but in order to avail themselves of this exemption, an attorney helping a client form a corporation would have to retain a separate formation agent, and it would be this latter agent that would be subject to the AML rules. More on this in a moment.)

Compared to the more aggressive beneficial ownership transparency reforms touted by anticorruption/AML advocates, and adopted in some other countries, the proposed U.S. legislation is fairly mild—but it is still, as prior commentators on this blog have emphasized (here and here), a welcome step in the right direction. After all, while the U.S. record on fighting global corruption and international money laundering is good in some respects (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative come to mind), when it comes to addressing the facilitators of corruption, such as corporate secrecy, the U.S. is a laggard (as illustrated by poor U.S. score on the Tax Justice Network’s 2018 “Financial Secrecy Index,” released last month). So it’s indeed encouraging that the TITLE Act, and its counterpart in the U.S House of Representatives (the less-cleverly-named “Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act”) have received both bipartisan support and the endorsement of a wide range of interest groups—including not just anticorruption, AML, and tax justice advocacy groups, but also representatives of law enforcement, the finance industry and other business interests (here and here). Many are cautiously optimistic that some version of these bills might actually become law this year.

But some opposition remains. The sources of that opposition are, in some cases, predictable: the Chamber of Commerce, for example, opposes these reforms, as does FreedomWorks, the lobbying group sponsored by the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers. One of the major opponents of the legislation, though, was more surprising, at least to me: the American Bar Association (ABA), which represents the U.S. legal profession. The ABA has come strongly against this legislation, sending letters to the responsible committees in both the House and Senate expressing strong opposition to even these relatively mild reforms.

What’s the explanation for this uncompromising opposition? Do the objections make sense on the merits? How did the ABA decide to take such a strong stand, despite the fact that I’m sure many ABA members support greater beneficial ownership transparency? I don’t know the answers to any of these questions yet, and I may try to do a few more posts over this month as I try to work through these issues. But for now, let me offer some preliminary thoughts: Continue reading →

What Will It Take To Pass the Sri Lankan Audit Bill?

Posted on by
3

Regular, effective auditing of public programs by an independent body is widely recognized as a crucial anticorruption tool. Yet in Sri Lanka, the legal framework that would enable such effective auditing is still not in place. Although Sri Lanka’s Auditor General’s Department (AG) has been in operation for more than 200 years, it derives most of its functions from executive practice and regulations, rather than legislation. For this reason, the office is largely toothless: It cannot take any action to enforce its findings beyond submitting reports to two parliamentary committees, but these have little to no impact, as any follow-up actions are largely dependent on executive discretion. For years, experts and citizens alike have recognized the urgent need for a National Audit Law to govern and empower the Auditor General’s Department.

Yet despite repeated efforts and a constitutional mandate, the government has still not succeeded in enacting such a robust statutory framework to govern public audits. A National Audit Bill has been in the process of “being drafted” since the early 2000s, but an actual draft bill didn’t appear until 2013. No further action was taken on that bill. When President Sirisena took office in January 2015, he declared that the government would pass a National Audit Act by March 2015 as part of his 100-day programme. But although a new Audit Bill was proposed to Cabinet in April 2015, the proposal was deferred by the Cabinet a shocking 24 times, up until October 2017. Eventually, there were encouraging reports that the “impasse” had ended and that the Audit Bill had been approved by the Cabinet. But it was not to be: it turned out that what had been approved were amendments to the proposed bill, and not the bill itself. Subsequently, the government stated that it will not be submitting the Bill to Parliament – back to square one.

Why the seemingly interminable delay? It appears that the main reason for the impasse, at least since 2015, is a contentious section which vests the AG with the power to impose a surcharge—that is, to disallow public expenditure and require monies found to have been used improperly to be refunded by the guilty parties. This has met with resistance, mainly because it would take decisions concerning enforcement out of the hands of politicians. (Opponents of the bill also claim that it would hinder the carrying out of public duties by politicians, such as when urgent funds are required to respond to natural calamities.) Yet many reformers insist that giving the AG the surcharge power is necessary and non-negotiable.

If progress on the Audit Bill is to move forward, something has got to give. In my view, despite all the policy arguments for granting the AG the surcharge power, it’s better to move ahead and enact an Audit Act that lacks this provision, rather than allowing this sticking point to further hold up its passage. This is one of those situations where we can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Continue reading →

How Can We Assess the Sincerity of Anticorruption Campaigns?

Posted on by
5

The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. And many countries plagued by corruption did just that over the course of 2017, with Venezuela, China, Russia, Ukraine, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations launching (or in some cases continuing) high-profile anticorruption campaigns. Yet outside observers often have difficulty distinguishing sincere, well-intentioned anticorruption campaigns are well-intentioned from politically-motivated purges. Moreover, this dichotomy may be too simple, as many anticorruption campaigns may have mixed or complex motives. (Very often, for example, individuals targeted by an anticorruption campaign may have both engaged in misconduct and also be political opponents of the ruling faction.) Yet even though it is difficult for outsiders to assess the motives of foreign countries’ anticorruption campaigns—especially in real time—such an inquiry is often necessary, especially when outsiders must decide how aggressively to assist with things like asset freezes, extradition of fugitives, and other sorts of aid and support for anticorruption efforts.

While there is no definite set of criteria that can be used to determine the sincerity of an anticorruption campaign, it is nonetheless possible to develop a set of questions than can serve as reference points and  channel our attention to certain key issues, or “red flags,” that might help us distinguish sincere and genuine anticorruption efforts from those that are mainly political vendettas. Such questions might include the following: Continue reading →

Tracking Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Administration–February 2018 Update

Posted on by
Reply

Last May, we launched our project to track credible allegations that President Trump, as well as his family members and close associates, are seeking to use the presidency to advance their personal financial interests.Just as President Trump’s son Eric will be providing President Trump with “quarterly” updates on the Trump Organization’s business affairs, we will do our best to provide readers with regular updates on credible allegations of presidential profiteering. Our February 2018 update is now available here.

A few highlights from the most recent update:

  • Some end-of-first year statistics:
    • During his first year in office, President Trump spent 121 days (approximately one-third of his presidency) at properties owned by the Trump Organization.
    • Trump hotels and resorts earned more than $1.2 million from bookings by Republican political groups in 2017, despite having earned less than $100,000 per year from these groups in the previous 15 years.
    • On at least 35 separate occasions, members of the Trump Administration used the government platform to promote the Trump brand.
    • Trump Organization companies sold $35 million worth of real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive buyers making the purchases through anonymous shell companies. Prior to Trump’s winning the Republican nomination, fewer than 4% of Trump Organization real estate sales were to secret buyers using this tactic. Since President Trump won the nomination, that number has jumped to 70%, and stayed there throughout his first year in office.
  • The Administration recently waived sanctions against several criminally-convicted banks–sanctions that would have barred these banks from managing pension funds and individual retirement accounts. While the grant of such waivers is not unusual, some expressed concern that one of the banks granted the waiver, Deutsche Bank, has lent President Trump billions of dollars, and also provided sizable loans to Jared Kushner, raising at least the appearance of a possible conflict of interest.
  • While many coastal states applied for exemptions from the Trump Administration’s decision to lift prohibitions on offshore drilling, the Administration granted only one exemption–for Florida. The Administration has not been able to offer a coherent explanation as to why Florida is differently situated from other states, such as California, leading many to speculate that the exemption was granted in part for political reasons (the Florida Governor is a Republican), and in part because of the Trump family’s personal financial interest in protecting Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.
  • Shortly before President Trump and Jared Kushner made their first diplomatic trip to Israel, one of Israel’s largest financial institutions made a $30 million investment in the Kushner family’s real estate company, raising questions about whether the financial ties between Kushner and Israel might skew his diplomatic priorities and strategy.
  • A Trump Tower project in India is apparently attempting to attract buyers by advertising that the first 100 people who purchase units will be able to have a meet-and-greet with Donald Trump, Jr.

As always, we note that while we try to include only those allegations that appear credible, we acknowledge that many of the allegations that we discuss are speculative and/or contested. We also do not attempt a full analysis of the laws and regulations that may or may not have been broken if the allegations are true. For an overview of some of the relevant federal laws and regulations that might apply to some of the alleged problematic conduct, see here.

Beneficial Ownership Disclosure by Multilateral Development Banks

Posted on by
1

Joseph Kraus at The ONE Campaign recently summarized for GAB readers  measures governments are taking to require companies registered in their territory to reveal the natural person or persons who own and control them, their beneficial owners.  A parallel effort has begun to persuade the international development banks – the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – to reveal the beneficial owners of the companies “their monies” (read taxpayer monies) fund.  In May 2017, the U.S. Congress ordered the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to see that each bank: –

“collects, verifies, and publishes, to the maximum extent practicable, beneficial ownership information … for any corporation or limited liability company, other than a publicly listed company, that receives funds from [it].”  Division J, section 2079(f) of the  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

As the U.S. is a significant funder of each bank, an American serves on the board of each.  In the 2017 law, Congress directed the Treasury Secretary, to whom the American board members answer, “to instruct” each to urge its bank to comply with Congress’ wish on beneficial ownership.  It also required the Secretary to report on how the successful the American board member had been in persuading the other board members and the management of their bank to gather and reveal beneficial ownership information.

The Secretary’s report contains several surprises on which banks took the U.S. effort on beneficial ownership seriously and which ones blew it off.  With the banks that ignored the U.S. effort, it leaves unanswered an interesting question: What if anything did board members representing other countries committed to the disclosure of beneficial ownership do to push the issue?

Continue reading →

Corruption Discussion on “The Scholars’ Circle”

Posted on by
3

Last summer UCLA Professor Miriam Golden and I did a radio interview on political corruption for a program called The Scholars’ Circle, hosted by Maria Armoudian. I just learned that a recording of the program is available online, and I thought it might be of interest to some readers of this blog. The recording can be found here; the discussion about corruption begins at 17:16.

The relatively brief but wide-ranging discussion, skillfully moderated by Ms. Armoudian, touches on five major issues (issues that we’ve also covered on this blog):

  • How should we define corruption, and how can we try to measure it? (at 18:11-26:31 on the recording)
  • Possible factors that might contribute to the level of corruption, including economic development, governance systems (democracy v. autocracy), social norms, and culture (26:32-32:41)
  • Whether and how countries can make the transition from a state of endemic corruption to a state of manageable/limited corruption—as well as the risk of backsliding (32:52-47:32)
  • What will the impact of the Trump Administration be on corruption, and on norms of integrity and the rule of law, in the United States? (47:42-52:02)
  • What are some of the main remedies that can help make a system less corrupt? (52:03-56:34)

There’s obviously a limit to how deep one can go in a format like this, and the program is geared toward a non-specialist audience, but I hope some readers find the conversation useful in stimulating more thinking on the topics we covered. Thanks for listening!

Why Samsung’s Recent Conviction Will Not Rid South Korea of Chaebols

Posted on by
1

Samsung is in search of a new leader after Jay Y. Lee, grandson of Samsung’s founder, was convicted of bribing South Korea’s President to approve a controversial merger between two Samsung affiliates. Many thought that the proposed merger, which had been heavily criticized by independent analysts and investors, would not receive the legally-required approval from then-President Park Geun-hye’s administration. Lee allegedly bribed President and people close to her, to the tune of $38 million, for her support. When this corruption was exposed, President Park resigned and Lee was prosecuted and ultimately convicted.

Some hope that these dramatic developments portend more far-reaching changes in South Korea’s economy—in particular, the destruction of the chaebols (literally “wealth clans”), the multinational conglomerates in which leadership is passed from person to person within a family. Many credit chaebols with the successful post-World War II transformation of South Korea’s agrarian economy into an international economic powerhouse, but others criticize chaebols on a number of grounds, including the claim that they concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a small family minority, pay low dividends to ordinary investors, and facilitate the sort of grand corruption exposed in the Samsung affair.

After President Park resigned in disgrace, she was replaced by President Moon Jae-in, promised to put an end to chaebols altogether. Alas, this is unlikely. Indeed, it’s looking increasingly like Samsung’s recent scandal will not have a lasting effect on chaebols, or even on Samsung’s long-term profitability. Continue reading →

Can Sri Lanka Clean Up Its Elections?

Posted on by
1

Schools bags, school books, seed and fertilizer, clothes, sewing machines, clocks, calendars, and mobile phones – these are just some of the items that were distributed to the public during the 2015 Sri Lankan Presidential election campaign as “election bribes”. Indeed, this election was plagued by widespread violations of election law and the blatant misuse of state resources, including the illegal display of cut-outs, distribution of money during political meetings, the use of vehicles belonging to state institutions for propaganda purposes, and the construction of illegal election offices. Moreover, overall spending on election activities by the two main candidates was colossal. Incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa (the losing candidate) is reported to have spent over 2 billion Rupees (approximately US$13 million) of public funds on his advertising campaign alone, excluding the cost of production, while the winning candidate, Maithripala Sirisena, is reported to have had a budget of 676 million Rupees (approximately US$ 4.4 million) for electronic and print media.

In this context, reports that the Cabinet of Sri Lanka has unanimously approved a proposal to amend the country’s election laws in order to place more controls on campaign-related expenditures is good news. Such reform would address a gaping void in the existing legal framework: although Sri Lanka has laws prohibiting vote-buying and similar practices, there are currently no laws regulating campaign finance. The specifics of the approved Cabinet Memorandum are still not publicly available, and it is therefore not yet possible to offer a detailed evaluation of the proposed changes. Nonetheless, given what we already know about election campaigns in Sri Lanka—especially regarding the corruption risks associated with the lack of adequate regulation—it is possible to offer a few general observations and recommendations. Continue reading →

Guest Post: Global Forum or Global Farce on Asset Recovery?

Posted on by
2

GAB is delighted to welcome back Susan Hawley, Policy Director at Corruption Watch, to contribute today’s guest post:

The global record on recovering assets looted from public treasuries is not good. The World Bank and UNODC estimate that between $20-40 billion is stolen each year. Between 2006 and 2012, $2.6 billion stolen assets were frozen in so-called “destination” countries, and $423.5 million was returned. That means of the roughly $120 billion (taking the lowest end of the World Bank and UNODC’s estimate) thought to have been potentially looted globally in that 6 year period, only 0.3% was actually recovered.

To strengthen international efforts to combat this problem, the 2016 London Anti-Corruption Summit called for the creation of a Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR); the World Bank and UNODC’s Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative organized the inaugural Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR), in December 2017 in Washington, D.C., with the US and UK governments as co-hosts. The GFAR, which welcomed over 300 participants from 26 jurisdictions, focused on four countries: Nigeria, (thought to have to have lost $32 billion to corruption under previous President Goodluck Jonathan); Sri Lanka (where former President Rajapaksa allegedly stole up to $5.38 billion); Tunisia (where former ruler Ben Ali and his family are thought to have amassed wealth of over $13 billion); and Ukraine (where former president Yanukovych and his associates are thought to have stolen around $7.5 billion). These countries were selected for their political will to recover stolen assets and the considerable assets they have to recover.

The stated objectives for the GFAR were “progress on cases achieved by the four focus countries, increased capacity through technical sessions, renewed commitment to advancing asset recovery cases, and increased collaboration among involved jurisdictions.” As measured against these objectives, was the GFAR a success? Should it be a regular event? More generally, do asset recovery forums like this have sufficient positive impact to justify their cost? Continue reading →

Learning from Defeat: The Menendez Case

Posted on by
2

Last Friday, the Department of Justice asked for another chance to try U.S. Senator Robert Menendez on corruption charges, requesting that the court “set the case for retrial at the earliest possible date.”  The first trial resulted in a mistrial.  Ten of the 12 jurors held out for acquittal, saying prosecutors had produced no “smoking gun.”  Yet the prosecution did indeed have a smoking gun – irrefutable proof the Senator broke the law – which it did in fact show the jury.

Prosecutors can learn much about trying corruption cases from the failure to convict Menendez the first time.  Not, as one commentator claims, that America’s anticorruption laws are so flawed only the most flagrant violators need fear them.  The lessons have nothing to do with America’s anticorruption laws, which are hardly in bad shape. Nor its system of 12 citizens determining the facts in a criminal case.  Continue reading →