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
-
News BriefCFPB ends probe into Meta’s financial advertising practices
Meta says it is no longer under investigation by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the latest instance of the agency scaling back enforcement under President Donald Trump.
-
News BriefTexas sues Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue over alleged misleading marketing of Tylenol
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued two pharmaceutical companies for ”deceptively marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers” despite risks linked to autism. The filing came two days before HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to walk back the claims.
-
News BriefCFPB scraps bad-actor registry, citing cost-benefit issues
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shut down a registry of non-bank financial firms that broke consumer laws. The agency cites the costs being ”not justified by the speculative and unquantified benefits to consumers.”