Compliance implications of USAA order addressing AML lapses
By 
Jaclyn Jaeger2022-03-22T16:59:00
The consent order issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against USAA Bank imparts lessons for compliance officers in the financial services industry on how—and how not—to maintain a Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program.
Related articles
-
ArticleUSAA whistleblowers want to be heard—and now
Jaclyn Jaeger reflects on feedback received from former and current USAA employees following her three-part series detailing alleged violations of law and mismanaged compliance culture at the financial services giant.
-
ArticleWhistleblower to OCC: USAA had 400,000 undisclosed Military Lending Act violations
USAA Bank engaged in an estimated 400,000 violations of the Military Lending Act, a former director of compliance within the bank reported to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in documents seen by Compliance Week.
-
ArticleA look inside USAA’s ‘catastrophically mismanaged’ compliance culture
In exclusive interviews with Compliance Week, former USAA insiders describe a risk and compliance culture in which numerous individuals either were given the axe or quit because the problems were so endemic.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
ArticleFlorida seafood exec faces 10 years for crab claw price fixing
A Florida seafood company executive has pleaded guilty to conspiring with competitors to fix the prices he paid to local fishers, an effort that impacted more than $8 million in wholesale fish and cut the pay of hundreds of fishers, the Department of Justice said.
-
ArticleFormer U.S. clothing business CEO faces 25 years for bribery in Honduras
The former CEO of a Georgia clothing business faces 25 years in prison for bribing Honduran officials to win $10 million in uniform contracts in Honduras, after being caught up in a Department of Justice Anticorruption Task Force.
-
News BriefDOJ sues Uber over alleged discrimination against disabled riders
The DOJ sued Uber Thursday, alleging it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying people with disabilities equal access to its services.