Citigroup's Money Laundering Controls Must Be Improved: Fed

Citigroup's Money Laundering Controls Must Be Improved: Fed
|
Open Image Modal
NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 05: A 'Citi' sign is displayed near Citibank headquarters in Manhattan on December 5, 2012 in New York City. Citigroup Inc. today announced it was laying off 11,000 workers, about 4 percent of its workforce, in a move to slash costs. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The Federal Reserve is none too pleased with Citigroup's money-laundering controls. But don't worry, the big bank promises to do better.

The Fed flagged Citi for lacking "effective systems of governance and internal controls to adequately oversee the activities" of its branches -- including those of the U.S. arm of Citi's Mexican bank, Banamex -- just to make sure they aren't laundering money for Mexican drug lords, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Un or other unsavory characters, according to a recent consent order the Fed made public on Tuesday.

Citi did not admit or deny wrongdoing, and it was not ordered to pay a fine. But it did agree to tighten up its controls and make regular progress reports to the Fed about its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to watch and flag sketchy transactions.

Nearly a year ago, Citi signed a similar order with another bank regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The OCC claimed that Citi failed to keep a close enough eye on bank transactions and perform due diligence on the customers running money through its branches. (Citi didn't admit or deny wrongdoing or pay a fine in that settlement either.)

"Citi continues to take the appropriate steps to address remaining requirements and build a strong and sustainable program," Citigroup spokeswoman Molly Millerwise Meiners said in an email to The Huffington Post. The Fed's order was based on the OCC's findings last year, she says, and the bank "has made substantial progress in strengthening" its controls since that last order.

The U.S. government has lately been cracking down on money laundering, though in some cases more aggressively than others. British bank HSBC last December agreed to pay $1.9 billion to settle charges that it flagrantly violated money laundering restrictions for years. Another British bank, Standard Chartered, paid $327 million to settle similar charges.

And the biggest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, is reportedly also soon to be hit with the kind of cease-and-desist order Citi has received.

The Fed's order follows regulators being excoriated earlier this month by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other senators in front of the Senate Banking Committee over money-laundering controls.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Bankers Who Want To Break Up Big Banks
Sanford "Sandy" Weill(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
The former Citigroup Chairman and CEO told CNBC in 2012 that "we should probably... split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, and have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
Retired Citigroup chairman John S. Reed wrote to the New York Times in 2009: "Some kind of separation between institutions that deal primarily in the capital markets and those involved in more traditional deposit-taking and working-capital finance makes sense." (credit:AP)
Phil Purcell(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
Phil Purcell, former chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the big banks should break their divisions up into separate firms. "These businesses should be spun off to give the value to shareholders and let investment banks be owned privately -- hopefully largely by employees... so that the interests of the owners and bankers are aligned," he wrote. (credit:AP)
David Komansky(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
Former Merill Lynch CEO, David Komansky, is another former megabank CEO calling for the breakup of "too big to fail" banks, according to Simon Johnson. Komansky told Bloomberg TV that he "regrets" calling for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed banks to become bigger than ever. (credit:AP)
Sallie Krawcheck(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Former Citigroup CFO Sallie Krawcheck has argued that big banks are simply too complex to manage. (credit:AP)
Richard Parsons(06 of07)
Open Image Modal
After announcing the end of his 16-year tenure on the board of Citigroup, Richard Parsons told Bloomberg, "to some extent what we saw in the 2007, 2008 crash was the result of the throwing off of Glass-Steagall. Have we gotten our arms around it yet? I don't think so because the financial-services sector moves so fast." (credit:AP)
Scott Shay(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
Scott Shay, the founder and chairman of Signature Bank, wrote in American Banker that "reinstating Glass Steagall should be the highest priority" for financial regulators. (credit:AP)