Country _ Name
United States
SectionTitle
KYC requirements
Body
The know your customer or know your client (KYC) guidelines and regulations for financial services require that professionals try to verify the identity, suitability, and risks involved with maintaining a business relationship.

Legal affairs

National regulatory framework regarding AML and effective date of the regulations

The United States lacks a unified national regulatory framework for AML. Instead, AML and KYC compliance are governed by a patchwork of federal laws, each addressing different aspects of financial transactions:

  • BSA: Establishes recordkeeping and reporting requirements for financial institutions, including reporting cash transactions over $10,000, verifying the identities of individuals conducting transactions, and maintaining detailed records of financial activities.
  • Money Laundering Control Act of 1986: Criminalises money laundering and mandates that financial institutions implement procedures for monitoring and reporting suspicious activities.
  • Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: Requires verification of the identity of individuals purchasing monetary instruments over $3,000 and expands the definition of financial institutions.
  • Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act: Imposes requirements for Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and establishes recordkeeping and verification rules for wire transfers.
  • Money Laundering Suppression Act: Mandates registration for MSBs and enhances AML procedures.
  • USA PATRIOT Act: Prohibits dealings with foreign shell banks, enhances due diligence procedures for financial institutions, and broadens AML programmes.
  • Sanctions and Anti-Terrorism Laws: Prohibit transactions with certain foreign jurisdictions, government officials, and individuals on specially designated nationals lists.
While Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act requiring extensive beneficial ownership reporting to FinCEN, among other things, the law was declared unconstitutional and is no longer in effect .



National regulator or relevant authority for AML controls

The United States does not have a unified national regulator for AML controls. Instead, AML enforcement is distributed among various federal agencies, each responsible for different aspects of the regulatory framework and different types of market participants reflecting the fragmented nature of AML oversight in the U.S.

Key regulators include:

  • Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN): Oversees AML compliance for financial institutions, including the issuance of regulations and enforcement actions.
  • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Enforces AML requirements related to securities and investment firms.
  • FDIC: Regulates and supervises banks for compliance with AML laws.
  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Engages in AML efforts related to national security and immigration.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Investigates financial crimes, including money laundering, and provides intelligence support.
  • IRS: Oversees AML and tax compliance, including reporting requirements for financial transactions.
  • United States Secret Service: Handles financial crimes, including money laundering and counterfeit currency investigations.
  • National Security Agency (NSA): Assists with intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts related to AML.


  • Customer Due Diligence

    Conduct of a typical KYC identification process

    In the U.S., there is no standardised “typical” KYC identification process due to the lack of unified KYC laws. Requirements differ widely among market participants and depend on the risk level of the individual. Generally, KYC involves:

  • Collecting Personal Information: Gathering details like name, address, and social security number.
  • Identity Verification: Checking government-issued IDs through digital or manual methods.
  • Risk Assessment: Performing background checks and reviewing financial history to assess risk.
  • Ongoing Monitoring: Regularly updating and reviewing customer information to detect suspicious activities.


  • Possibility to meet customer due diligence requirements by relying on third parties who are obliged by law themselves to comply with AML regulations

    Market participants can indeed rely on third parties to help meet customer due diligence requirements. While they maintain strict liability for illegal transactions—such as those involving individuals on sanctions lists—they often take comfort in the fact that third parties they work with are subject to their own AML obligations. For instance, while registered investment advisers and fund managers might not have explicit KYC obligations, the banks facilitating wire transfers to these advisers are required to conduct thorough KYC procedures. This reliance on third parties helps ensure compliance but does not absolve the market participants of their own regulatory responsibilities.



    Possibility to outsource customer due diligence by contract to other third parties who are not obliged by law to meet AML regulations and rely on these (e.g., WebID, IDnow, PostIdent)

    Where permitted by law, market participants often outsource KYC or AML compliance tasks to unregulated third parties. Although these third parties may not be legally required to meet AML standards, outsourcing can still help streamline processes and enhance efficiency. It is crucial, however, for market participants to ensure that these third parties are contractually obligated to adhere to rigorous compliance standards and that adequate due diligence is conducted to verify their effectiveness.



    Presence of a license or registration requirement for the third party in case of outsourcing customer due diligence

    There is no universal federal licensing requirement for third parties performing customer due diligence (CDD
    ). However, financial institutions are responsible for ensuring that these third parties comply with AML regulations. This often involves contractual obligations and due diligence checks, and some state or industry-specific regulations may apply depending on the nature of the services provided.



    Further questions

    Entities that could be relied on specifically by law as a third party to comply with AML regulations (regardless of outsourcing)


      credit institutions
    Yes financial institutions
      auditors, external accountants, and tax advisors
      notaries and other independent legal professionals
      other trust or company service providers
      estate agents
      other persons trading high-value goods
      providers of gambling services


    Authors

    Close

    Choose country