Julius Baer pays $80M in FIFA corruption settlement
By 
Jaclyn Jaeger2021-05-27T22:26:00
Swiss bank Julius Baer entered a deferred prosecution agreement and will pay $80 million for its role in a money laundering conspiracy linked to world soccer federation FIFA, the Department of Justice announced.
Related articles
-
ArticleFCA fines Julius Baer subsidiary $21.5M for bribery scheme
Julius Baer International will pay more than £18 million (U.S. $21.5 million) to settle charges laid by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority for paying bribes to generate business with a Russian oil company.
-
ArticleJulius Baer reserves $80M for FIFA corruption settlement
Julius Baer has set aside nearly $80 million in a proposed settlement with the Department of Justice regarding the agency’s corruption investigation linked to world soccer federation FIFA.
-
ArticleCompliance lessons from Julius Baer’s ‘serious AML failings’
Compliance officers can learn a lot from the anti-money laundering compliance shortcomings at Julius Baer Group, as well as from what the bank is now doing to enhance its risk management and AML compliance controls.
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.