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
-
ArticleFormer startup CEO gets 7 years in prison for $175M fraud against JPMorgan Chase
Charlie Javice, a former CEO who duped JPMorgan Chase into purchasing her start up company for $175 million, has been ordered to forfeit more than $22 million by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to spend 7 years in jail.
-
ArticleGeorgia Tech to pay $875,000 for allegations brought by compliance officers
Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC) has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle allegations first raised by two compliance officers that its cybersecurity protocols violated acceptable standards for defense contractors, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said.
-
ArticleTractor Supply Company hit with $1.35M fine for alleged California privacy violations
Tractor Supply Company has agreed to get into compliance with California’s consumer privacy law and to pay a $1.35 million fine—the largest yet by California—to settle allegations it violated the privacy rights of customers and job applicants.