January 22, 2016
Bank Regulatory and Transactional Practice
Pitfalls for the Unwary: Long Arm Jurisdiction
of State Enforcement of Money Transmittal
Company Laws
By: Geoffrey Etherington, Douglas P. Faucette and Beniamin D. Smolij
Last month we alerted our clients to newly proposed anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering
regulations in New York that sought to impose increased compliance requirements and vastly
expanded personal liability (including criminal liability) for senior compliance officers.1 Such
regulations have been followed by similar federal legislative proposals and we believe signal a
trend of increasing compliance and regulatory scrutiny on financial institutions and particularly their
management and boards of directors. 2
In light of increasing focus on AML/BSA compliance, we believe a corresponding regulatory trend
is occurring that warrants equal attention from money services businesses, particularly money
transmitters serving customers across the United States and facilitating international transfers. In
response to an increasingly digital marketplace, state governments are becoming more innovative
in their approach to regulating and taxing goods and services provided by companies engaging in
commerce with their residents via the internet. The main driving force of these new regulations and
interpretations is an attempt to extend the regulator’s reach beyond its borders to businesses with
no physical presence in the state. This shift from a “physical presence” to an “economic presence”
test implicates a state’s taxing, licensing and general regulatory jurisdiction.3 Unfortunately, there
has been very little uniformity and consistency among the several states in adapting to a changing
environment.4 We believe the resulting patchwork of inconsistent regulations requires attention
from all those potentially affected, especially given the current enforcement and compliance climate.
One area of regulation where physical presence as the sole nexus of jurisdiction is diminishing
is state licensure of money transmitters. Many states are specifically advising that licensing
requirements apply to businesses notwithstanding that no physical contacts with the state exist.
For instance, the state of Texas recently issued a Supervisory Memorandum requiring any money
services business, regardless of location, that transmits money for persons located in Texas
through a website, must obtain a license from the Texas Department of Banking, among other
requirements.5 Theoretically, this means that an institution with no location, employees or agents
in the entire United States could fall under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Banking
by accepting a single transmission order from a customer in Texas. Similar regulations can be
found in California, New York, Indiana and other states. Operating a money transmitting business
without the appropriate license can lead to severe consequences from both state and federal
authorities.6 Money transmitters should be aware that there is no “knowledge” requirement for
criminal prosecution under the federal statute, making the failure to obtain a required state money
transmitter license a strict-liability offense.7 Recent experience suggests that risk of prosecution is
higher where transfers involve residents of countries on the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) list
of high risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions.
While a state financial services regulator will often make the determination whether an entity is
engaged in money transmission services and thus requiring of a license, the Secretary of State in a
given state will often determine whether an entity is “transacting business” in the state requiring
foreign qualification. These determinations are entirely separate and do not need to be consistent.
While our experience has been that US branches of foreign banks are often found not exempt from
Bank Regulatory and Transactional Practice | LOCKE LORD QUICK Study
January 22, 2016
Page 2
registering as a money transmitter, a situation may arise in which such a branch is exempt by a
financial regulator and yet deemed to “transact business” by the state’s Secretary of State.
Across state lines, consistency is even less apparent. For instance, in some states, registering to
do business with a Secretary of State is sufficient contact with a state for that state to exercise its
taxing authority on the registrant, while for others, such registration is not dispositive. Similarly, in
some states holding a specialty license (such as a money transmitting license) establishes a taxable
relationship while not in others.8
We believe uniformity among the various state jurisdictions is unlikely to be achieved anytime
soon.9 In the meanwhile, money services businesses are forced to contend with an evolving and
often inconsistent regulatory environment. We especially caution large national and international
institutions with a global customer base. It is becoming more likely that an unsuspecting business
may unintentionally run afoul of state regulations because of expanded concepts of jurisdiction.
For example, acquisitions of companies that have an immaterial amount of business from money
transmittal operations may well be subject to state prior approval requirements. The consequences
are becoming more severe and can expose an entity to business disruption, considerable fines or
other enforcement actions. We recommend businesses in this space retain experienced counsel
with a national presence to advise them through an increasingly complex regulatory environment at
both the state and federal levels.
Endnotes
1 Locke Lord QuickStudy: Newly Proposed Anti-Money Laundering Regulations in New York Signal Increasing
Personal Criminal Liability for AML/BSA Compliance Officers (December 11, 2015). See also Locke Lord
QuickStudy: Multiple Staff Layoffs in the UK – The Scope for Criminal Liability for Directors (November 12,
2015).
2
See Holding Individuals Accountable and Deterring Money Laundering Act, H. R. 4242, 114th CONGRESS,
1st Session (December 11, 2015). See also Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Advisory to U.S. Financial
Institutions on Promoting a Culture of Corporate Compliance (August 11, 2014).
3
2015 Survey of State Tax Departments, Bloomberg BNA (Vol. 22, No. 4).
4
Id.
5
Texas Department of Banking, Supervisory Memorandum 1035 (May 1, 2013).
6
See 18 U.S. Code § 1960 – Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
7
Id.
8
2015 Survey of State Tax Departments, Bloomberg BNA (Vol. 22, No. 4).
9
Id.
Geoffrey Etherington | 212-912-2740 | [email protected]
Douglas P. Faucette | 202-220-6912 | [email protected]
Beniamin D. Smolij | 713-226-1216 | [email protected]
Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Dallas | Hartford | Hong Kong | Houston | Istanbul | London | Los Angeles | Miami | Morristown
New Orleans | New York | Providence | Sacramento | San Francisco | Stamford | Tokyo | Washington DC | West Palm Beach
Locke Lord LLP disclaims all liability whatsoever in relation to any materials or information provided. This brochure is provided solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended to
constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. If you wish to secure legal advice specific to your enterprise and circumstances in connection with any of the topics addressed, we
encourage you to engage counsel of your choice. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please contact us at either [email protected] or Locke Lord LLP, 111 South Wacker
Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Attention: Marketing. If we are not so advised, you will continue to receive brochures.
Attorney Advertising © 2016 Locke Lord LLP