Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - The Administration's National Money Laundering Strategy For 2001

S. HRG.
107641
THE ADMINISTRATIONS NATIONAL

MONEY LAUNDERING STRATEGY FOR 2001
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE EXAMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS NATIONAL STRATEGY

TO COMBAT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

81577 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:31 Sep 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 SEPT26.XXX SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut PHIL GRAMM, Texas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
ZELL MILLER, Georgia CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
STEVEN B. HARRIS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
WAYNE A. ABERNATHY, Republican Staff Director
STEPHEN R. KROLL, Special Counsel
MARTIN J. GRUENBERG, Senior Counsel
LINDA L. LORD, Chief Counsel
MADELYN SIMMONS, Republican Professional Staff
JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator
GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor
(II)
C O N T E N T S
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

Page
Opening statement of Chairman Sarbanes ........................................................... 1
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Gramm ................................................................................................ 3
Senator Stabenow ............................................................................................. 11
Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 12
Prepared statement ................................................................................... 63
Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 17
Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 18
Senator Allard ................................................................................................... 18
Senator Schumer .............................................................................................. 19
Senator Bayh .................................................................................................... 20
Senator Corzine ................................................................................................ 21
Senator Miller ................................................................................................... 36
Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 65
Senator Bunning ............................................................................................... 65
WITNESSES
Carl Levin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ....................................... 4

John F. Kerry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........................ 7
Charles E. Grassley, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................... 10
John J. LaFalce, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of
New York .............................................................................................................. 71
James A. Leach, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa ..... 73
Marge Roukema, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey ........................................................................................................... 74
Jimmy Gurule , Under Secretary for Enforcement, U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Washington, DC ....................................................................... 22
Response to written questions of Senator Carper .......................................... 104
Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................ 27
Stuart E. Eizenstat, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Washington DC ........................................................................ 41
William F. Wechsler, Former Advisor, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 49
Jonathan Winer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law
Enforcement, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ............................... 51
(III)
IV
Page
Alvin C. James, Jr., Former Special Agent, Criminal Investigation, Internal
Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC ............ 53
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Various letters and attachments submitted by Senator Carl Levin .................... 106
H.R. 2922 .................................................................................................................. 152
THE ADMINISTRATIONS NATIONAL
MONEY LAUNDERING STRATEGY FOR 2001
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING,
URBAN AFFAIRS, AND
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 9:05 a.m., in room SD538 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (Chairman of the
Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PAUL S. SARBANES
Chairman SARBANES. The hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome our colleagues that are here with us this
morning. They represent, of course, a bipartisan element in the
Congress who have taken a long interest and advocated significant
legislative initiatives to counter money laundering.
This mornings hearing will focus on the Federal Governments
effort to fight money launderingwhat has been done, what must
be done. Its starting point will be the National Money Laundering
Strategy for 2001. We will be hearing from the Administration.
That is mandated by the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes
Act of 1998.
First, we will hear from our Congressional colleagues. They will
be followed by Jimmy Gurule , the Under Secretary of Treasury for
Enforcement; Michael Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. They will be
followed by Former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Stuart
Eizenstat. And then we will conclude with a panel at the end of
the hearing: William Wechsler, Former Advisor to the Treasury on
money laundering; Jonathan Winer, Former Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of State for International Law Enforcement; and Former IRS
Special Agent, Alvin James.
We meet in the shadow of the terrorist attacks of September 11.
It is obviously more urgent now than ever to develop and put in
place the array of tools necessary to trace and interdict the funds
on which terrorists like Osama bin Laden rely to pay for their oper-
ations. This effort cannot be carried out without major investments
of time and planning. Obviously, they have a well developed net-
work of financial means to pay the bills. Our response to terrorism
must include national and international programs to checkmate it
that are every bit as complex and sophisticated as the practice of
terrorism itself.
I think September 11 has sharpened our focus on the ways that
vulnerabilities in regulatory and enforcement procedures in our fi-
(1)
2
nancial system can be exploited, although I might note that this

hearing on terrorism had been scheduled before those events oc-
curred, and in fact, was to take place the very next day. The IMF
estimates that the global volume of laundered money to be between
2 to 5 percent of global GDP. In other words, between $600 billion
and $1.5 trillion. Money laundering uses the investment banking
and payment system mechanisms of our existing financial system.
It fuels organized crime. It creates a transmission belt for money
spirited out of national treasuries in numerous countries by corrupt
officials. And it is a terrorist source of financial oxygen.
The United States has long taken the initiative in efforts to stop
the laundering of proceeds from crime and corruption, beginning
with the passage in 1970 of the Bank Secrecy Act. That Act re-
quires banks to report suspicious activities and large currency
transactions. But despite the progress we have made, especially
over the last 15 years, money laundering has become more difficult
to detect. Globalization, which eliminates barriers to free capital
movements and relies on advanced technology, makes it possible to
move money virtually instantly between any two points on the
globe. These changed circumstances have left normal banking prac-
tices and traditionally tolerated offshore banking facilities open to
grave abuse.
Recent investigations by Senator Levins Permanent Sub-
committee on Investigations have revealed that correspondent
banking facilities and private banking services offered by U.S.
banks can contribute to international money laundering by imped-
ing financial transparency and hiding foreign client identity and
activity. The committees extensive reports described how crime
syndicates, corrupt foreign dictators, and narcotics traffickers use
these practices and exploit loopholes in current U.S. law. Thus,
criminals and terrorists achieve hidden access to the U.S. financial
system, moving under the radar screen of U.S. law enforcement of-
ficials and financial supervisors.
The Administration, as we all know, has now issued an Execu-
tive Order a couple of days ago freezing the assets of 27 groups and
individuals. This is certainly a step in the right direction. But in
the judgment of most experts, it is not enough and we need to
move forward with these multilateral efforts to deal with the
money laundering situation.
It is long past time to cut the financial lifelines which facilitate
terrorist operations by closing the loopholes in our financial sys-
tem. Over the past week, both The Washington Post and The New
York Times have argued forcefully for tougher and broader laws. In
fact, The Washington Post urged in an editorial on Saturday:
The existing requirements that banks report suspicious activity to regulators
should be extended to other types of financial institutions, such as stock brokers,
insurers, and even casinos. The reports that allies of last weeks hijackers may have
bought financial auctions to profit from the carnage underscores the suspicion that
a bank-only focus is too narrow. Broader reporting requirements already are en-
forced in Europe. The United States should now follow.
And 2 days ago, The New York Times called on the Administra-
tion and the Congress to revive international efforts to pressure
countries . . . to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be
accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with finan-
cial institutions based in these nations.
3
This is obviously the time to move forward decisively to address

a situation that has plagued us for years and which today poses an
unprecedented challenge.
I very much look forward to hearing our witnesses this morning,
and I yield to the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,
Senator Gramm.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PHIL GRAMM
Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, I appre-
ciate these hearings.
Let me say that I am very pleased with the actions of the Bush
Administration to this point. I have had extensive discussions with
the Secretary of the Treasury and with the Under Secretary of the
Treasury, and I am very pleased that they are working to put to-
gether an effective program, and to coordinate their efforts with us,
and that they are committed to due process of law.
I think it is very important that we recognize that you can do
almost anything that you need to do to deal with problems of
money laundering, but you can do it the right way or you can do
it the wrong way. I do not intend to be involved in doing it the
wrong way.
And let me just give a couple of examples to try to explain the
concerns I have. If we go out and freeze assets, which we have
every obligation to do when we believe that those assets have been
used to harm Americans and they represent a clear and present
danger to our people, when we do that, we have to establish a proc-
ess where people have the right to challenge that action.
So if a guy named Bobby bin Loden from Iraan, Texas, has his
assets frozen, he should have an opportunity on a timely basis to
come forward and say, I am from Iraan, Texas. My names Loden.
You made a mistake here. And in fact, if a mistake has been
made, if this persons business has been harmed, then that person
has to be compensated.
The second example I would like to use is related to unchecked
authority. The Secretary of the Treasury, in any money laundering
bill, is given extraordinary power. I believe that power is needed
to take action, and I do not want to do anything to impede the abil-
ity of the Secretary to take action. But it is very important that in
taking that action, the rule of law be followed.
For example, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that a
country, say France, is not adequately participating in our money-
laundering effort, and he decides to take action to deny the ability
of American banks to operate in France, I would have to say that
I prefer Bushs proposal, which would deny the ability of French
banks to operate in the United States, because it is fairer and I
think it would be a more effective inducement.
But whatever course of action he decides, it seems to me that he
has to come forward with findings in taking that action that are
potentially rebuttable in court. And if there are security concerns
in those findings, at least he should have to go before a circuit
judge in private and present those findings. I cannot imagine that
we would give anyone in a free society the authority to take actions
that would destroy tens of millions of dollars of someone elses
property without requiring some system of checks and balances.
4
So let me say that I think the most important thing we can do

in this area is to enhance enforcement. I think that has been the
primary approach of the Bush Administration. It is an approach
that I support. I want to be certain that we have every power that
is needed to do the job. But every power has to include with it due
process of law that protects the right of innocent people who may
be caught up by a mistake in this process. And I think any action
that is taken should be taken through regulation and not by order,
so that people have an opportunity to be heard and comment on
proposals before they become final.
We can do everything that we want to do within the rule of law,
within the establishment of due process, and with checks and bal-
ances to protect ourselves from abuse. The question is doing it
right or doing it wrong. I am determined to see we do it right
I believe we can, and I am confident we will.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Gramm.
I say to my colleagues, we are going to take the testimony of our
colleagues because I know they have other conflicting engagements
this morningSenator Levin, for one, has his responsibilities as
Chairman of the Armed Services Committeeand then we will
come back and take statements from the Members of the Com-
mittee as we go on to the next panel.
Senator Levin, we would be happy to hear from you. And just let
me note that Senator Levin has played an instrumental role in ex-
posing how criminals have used the U.S. financial system.
As the Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on In-
vestigations, he has published two comprehensive reports on how
correspondent and private banking activities make U.S. banks vul-
nerable to money laundering and he has introduced a very impor-
tant piece of legislationThe Money Laundering Abatement Act of
2001. The work of the Subcommittee was very thorough, very com-
prehensive, very carefully done, and we are very appreciative that
Senator Levin is with us this morning.
STATEMENT OF CARL LEVIN
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding these hearings, for your leader-
ship in going after money laundering, which is very much a part
of the terrorist effort to terrorize us and the world.
Tightening money laundering laws would strike an important
blow against terrorism, and we are all determined to take those
steps. One of the steps is set forth in a bill which I introduced,
along with my principal Republican cosponsor, Senator Grassley.
Senator Sarbanes, thank you for your cosponsorship. It is also co-
sponsored by Senators Kyl, DeWine, Bill Nelson and Durbin.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, we know already that the September
11 terrorists have used our banks, our financial institutions, to ac-
complish their ends. They have used checks, credit cards, wire
transfers involving our banks. There is even pictures of two of the
terrorists using an ATM. And there are reports of large unpaid
credit card bills as well.
Terrorists, drug traffickers, and other criminals can get money
into our banks and into our banking system through the use of for-
5
eign banks. And that is the correspondent banking issue which the
Chairman has referred to and which we have addressed in a series
of hearings that we have had and in a series of reports, and in the
bill which we have introduced.
As a matter of fact, terrorists and criminals can even create for-
eign banks for the purpose of getting money into our banks
through the correspondent banking system. This has been going on
with terrorists, including bin Laden, and criminals for years. We
just simply have to do something about it.
I just want to use one example of where a correspondent bank
was used by bin Laden. This testimony came out recently at the
criminal trial in New York where bin Ladens associates were testi-
fying, and they testified to the following. That an associate of bin
Laden testified that he had received $250,000 by a wire transfer
from a bank called the Al Shamal Islamic Bank, which is in the
Sudan. This was in the early 1990s.
The Al Islamic Shamal Bank, according to the State Department,
is owned or partly owed by bin Laden and it is apparently still true
that bin Laden owns an interest in that Sudanese bank, or at least
was true as of March 16, 2000, when a respected international
newsletter on intelligence called the Indigo Publication, said that
bin Laden remains the leading shareholder of that bank.
Now testimony at this trial, which was a trial relating to the ter-
rorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Chairman SARBANES. The bombings of our embassies.
Senator LEVIN. Of our embassies. Thank you. Showed that this
$250,000 came through or from the bank that was owned by bin
Laden in the Sudan to this bank in Texas. There was a cor-
respondent relationship, either directly or indirectly, to that bank
from the bank in Sudan. The associate bought an airplane with the
$250,000 and flew it to bin Laden and delivered the keys to that
plane him. That was done through the wire transfer to an Amer-
ican bank of $250,000.
Now in the mid-1990s, Sudan was placed on the list of countries
that our banks could not do business with. That occurred after this
transfer. But the question then arises, well, if they cannot transfer
money directly to an American bank through a wire transfer,
through a correspondent account, is there a way to do it indirectly?
And I am afraid the answer is yes.
But before I show you how they can do indirectly what we have
stopped them from doing directly, I want to just say that as of
today, the website of that Sudanese bank shows that they still have
correspondent banking relations with western banks, including
American banks. Now, we think the American bank accounts are
either closed or no longer operative. But the website of this bank,
the Al Shamal Bank, you can see it on your own computers, still
shows that European banks, Southeast Asian banks, North Amer-
ican banks, including American banks, still have correspondent re-
lations with the bank, which as late as April 2000, was said by a
reputable newsletter relating to intelligence activities, that bin
Laden had an ownership interest in.
We are trying to find out, by the way, whether in fact these
banksthere are a lot of reputable banks on that listhave an
open account with the Al Shamal Bank. We are trying to determine
6
that as we speak. But the website of the Al Shamal Bank shows

that that correspondent relationship continues to exist to this day.
Finally, I want to go back to the direct and indirect issue.
If we could put that first chart back on about how bin Laden
used banks, not just could used, but actually did access the one
bank on the left, but then on the right shows how, when that was
stopped in the mid-1990s, when the OFAC list was created by the
Treasury Department, which prohibited our banks basically from
dealing with Sudanese banks and banks in other countries such as
Sudan, what the Al Shamal Bank now can do, and does do, accord-
ing to its website, instead of having a direct correspondent relation-
ship with an American bank and opening an account in an Amer-
ican bank instead opens an account in a foreign bank. And then
that foreign bank has a correspondent account in a U.S. bank.
Now that process, it seems to me, has also got to be very much
tightened. And we do it in our bill in a number of ways. I think
because of the time constraints of the Committee, I will not go into
the ways in which we constrain it in any depth, other than to say
this. Our bill will prohibit an American bank from having a cor-
respondent relationship at all with what is called a shell bank.
That is a bank that has no physical presence anywhere. It is li-
censed by a country, but has no physical presence anywhere.
We would prohibit a correspondent relationship with that bank.
We very much tightened the rules as to a correspondent relation-
ship between an American bank and two other types of banks. One
is an off-shore bank, which is not allowed to do business in the
country where it is registered, has a physical presence somewhere,
but the country that registers it says, we are not going to let you
do business with our citizens. And so we very much tighten that
up. We would require that they disclose to the American bank who
their customers are. And the same thing would be true under our
bill with banks in jurisdictions that are so-called suspect jurisdic-
tions because they have no very strong banking regulations.
There is a third area which Senator Kerrys bill gets to in a very
important way. And that is where he would give in his bill, which
I cosponsor, the Treasury Department the right, and he will de-
scribe his own bill, but I want to show you how it complements.
These bills work together. In fact, I will leave that to Senator
Kerry, other than to say that these bills work together to com-
plement each other.
Finally, let me just say this. There are a number of bills that are
outstanding here, a number of efforts that are being made. They
complement each other.
We received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice which
is very supportive of our bill. We also received a letter from my
own Attorney General in Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, very
strongly supporting our bill. But there are significant loopholes in
the correspondent banking area. These loopholes have to be closed
if we are going to truly wage a comprehensive war on terrorism.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the op-
portunity to testify.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, thank you very much. And we want
to thank you for the very careful, comprehensive hearings that
your Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations undertook.
7
Next, we will hear from Senator John Kerry, who has been at the
forefront of Congressional efforts to deal with domestic and inter-
national money laundering.
Earlier this year, Senator Kerry reintroduce the International
Counter Money Laundering and Foreign Anti-Corruption Act of
2001, which, as Senator Levin pointed out, gives the Secretary of
the Treasury authority to impose new special measures against for-
eign jurisdictions and entities that are of primary money laun-
dering concern to the United States.
Senator Kerry, we know you have been working this issue for a
considerable amount of time. We would be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator KERRY. Thank you very, very much. Thank you for hav-
ing these critical hearings and thank you for the opportunity to tes-
tify today. And to all the Members of the Committee, I am honored
to be in front of you.
I thank Senator Levin for his leadership in the Permanent Sub-
committee. I think he did a terrific job just now of helping to show
the linkages here and why this is so important.
I would like to sort of build a little bit on what he said, if I may.
There are a lot of tools, Mr. Chairman, in this new war. I would
ask unanimous consent to put my entire text in the record.
Chairman SARBANES. The full statement will be included in the
record.
Senator KERRY. Let me just chat about a few of the most impor-
tant points, if I may.
We have declared a new war on terrorism. And it is appropriate,
because it is new, it is going to be unlike anything that we have
ever engaged in. And unlike other wars where our technological su-
periority was the difference, Kosovo, for instance, where we did not
lose a person. We could bomb for days and achieve our goal. Or
Haiti, where our overpowering numbers, or Panama, where our
overpowering numbers, or even Vietnam, where troops and heli-
copters made a difference. Here, the single most important weapon
is going to be information. It is intelligence. And it is perhaps the
area in which we are our weakest today, sadly.
But coupled with intelligence is this management, if you will, of
the source of the power of these terrorist organizations, their capac-
ity to survive, to buy airplanes, to buy explosives, to pay peoples
living expenses, to move them around the world, to literally harbor
and succor them.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, that for years now, what we have
known is that this war is really more law enforcement than tradi-
tional military enterprise. It has to be multilateral. It has to raise
the standards on the planet, if you will, in order to be able to co-
operate adequately to do this.
We currently have some 36 jurisdictions that the OECD still
cites as being renegades, I guess is the best way to describe them,
with respect to their policies for accountability, for transparency,
movement of money, even tax policy.
Now, Senator Gramm and others have in the past been wary,
and I recognize that wariness, of having the United States impose
8
its will because somebody else might have a different tax structure.
I want to emphasizethat is not the rationale. It is not the dif-
ferential in a tax rate that would motivate us to say that those
places ought to be more accountable. It is the lack of transparency,
the lack of accountability, the different treatment between foreign
and domestic individuals, and the way they attract capital.
And I would just direct the attention of the Committee to its own
memorandum of the staff in preparation for this hearing, in which
they properly say: Money laundering poses an ongoing threat to the
United States. The economic costs associated with money laun-
dering include increased risks to bank soundness with potentially
large fiscal liabilities, reduced ability of a country to attract foreign
investment, increased volatility of international capital flows and
exchange rates, the distortion of the allocation of resources, dis-
tribution of wealth, and it can be costly to detect and eradicate.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is literally the lifeblood of all
criminal enterprises that these revenues generate. And all of these
are interconnected.
For instance, in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and the Al
Qaeda has been involved in drug trafficking, as the Taliban has
been. Now some point to the fact that the Taliban has tried to re-
duce the drug trafficking, principally because the Northern Alli-
ance and the Al Qaeda were sort of undercutting them, and so they
came in to move in on it. But three quarters of the worlds opium
has been coming out of there.
So you have a linkage. It is a linkage also, I might add, to much
of the proliferation issues, the movement of arms, arms trafficking,
illicitly. So if you are going to be serious about fighting a war on
terrorism, which we obviously should and must be, the first order
of priority is to implement an extraordinary diplomatic effort to
raise the international standards of accountability and trans-
parency and exchange of information.
Now I agree with Senator Gramm, there must be a due process
component here. And indeed, the Office of Foreign Asset Control,
OFAC, had an incident with Columbia, one individual, and they
moved rapidly to make certain that they addressed it and that
there was no unfairness in the application of any of these stand-
ards. Should it be de jure? Most likely. We should have it either
by regulation or by legislation, a structure so that we guarantee it.
But I have to also say, Mr. Chairman, over the 14 years or more
that I have been involved in this, I have witnessed a remarkable
reluctance by the financial community, the banking institutions, to
participate. I have traveled to England, met with a board of gov-
ernors there, others, talking about various jurisdictions under their
control, where you have known remarkable exchange of money
laundering efforts, havens.
These havens, I might add to everybody, put all of our legitimate
businesses at remarkable disadvantage and they are an incentive
for tax evasion, for every legitimate government on the face of the
planet that is struggling with the question of revenues. These rene-
gades offer an alternative to our capacity to do what we do without
unfairly distributing the burden of taxes. And so, we have an enor-
mous interest in pressing this as a matter of governance, as well
as a matter of fairness.
9
I think it is time to get tough. Fair but tough. We have the

strongest market in the world. People must access our market to
be meaningful players. And we must use the access to our market,
whether it is the Chip system in New York, where we clear checks,
or the partition placing in the marketplace itself, as the leverage
for the behavior of these countries.
And I would say to my colleagues, since the OECD has publicized
the names of many of these renegades, a large number of them
have already moved to change their laws because they understand
what the implications are. And as a consequence of what happened
on September 11, this is the best opportunity we have had ever to
try to do this.
Now many of you may remember the BCCI Bank which tried to
illegally enter our system. Osama bin Laden had a number of ac-
counts at BCCI. And we have learned, we did not know it at the
time. It was collateral to what we were doing in trying to protect
the laws of our banking structure.
But we have learned since through law enforcement and intel-
ligence that when we shut it down, we dealt him a very serious
economic blow because of the size of those accounts and his de-
pendency on that flow that Senator Levin has already described for
his money. So it is critical that we empower the Secretary of State
and I might add, the Secretary of Treasury, we have to go beyond
what the Bush Administration has done.
I support what they have done. I am glad they did what they did
this week. But as former Assistant Secretary of State, Jonathan
Winer, will show you in a while on a huge chart, the number of
Osama bin Laden linkages is mind-boggling. And when you see
this chart and measure the 27 that we have now named versus all
of those that we know in the public domain exist, this is a first step
that does not amount to the kind of war we need to be engaged in.
Now, I know that there are sensitivities and reasons for why we
want to try to take a few days to pull that together. But all of us
need to recognize that we have to be prepared to go further.
So, Mr. Chairman, in summary, the bill that we are hoping will
be embraced in the context of these larger efforts empowers the
Secretary of the Treasury to designate these primary money laun-
dering concerns, and after the designation, to take one of several
steps to move on the kind of corresponding banking situations Sen-
ator Levin has describedto require identification of those who use
the foreign banks payable-through account with a domestic finan-
cial institution, to require the identification of those who use the
foreign banks correspondent account with a domestic financial in-
stitution, to restrict or prohibit the opening or maintaining of cer-
tain corresponding account for foreign financial institutions.
But most importantly, ultimately, we have to empower the Sec-
retary of the Treasury with due process to prevent any country,
government, or financial institution that harbors or continues to
not adhere to the higher standards of banking behavior from tak-
ing part in the upside benefits of the United States of Americas
marketplace strength. And that is the way we have to play this if
we are going to really conduct a war on terrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Kerry.
10
Senator Grassley has played a very pivotal role in increasing

awareness about money laundering. Senator Grassley served as co-
chair of the Senate Caucus on Narcotics Control and authored the
Senate version of the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes
Strategy Act of 1998.
That Act mandates the development of a national strategy on
money laundering and requires submission of this strategy to the
Congress. In fact, our next panel from the Administration will actu-
ally be responding to the provision of the legislation that Senator
Grassley authored.
He is also the cosponsor of the bills that both Senator Levin and
Senator Kerry have introduced in this Congress, and Chuck, we are
pleased to have you here. We would be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Chairman Sarbanes, and my col-
leagues. And I am glad to be here with the authors of this legisla-
tion and to support their efforts.
If this were pre-September 11, I would probably be here just to
talk about money laundering as it dealt with drug trafficking and
our efforts to stop that. But, with the happenings of September 11,
it takes on a whole new side and obviously, we get to the point
where efforts to stop money laundering becomes also an essential
tool of going after terrorists that have been so well described by my
colleagues here at the table with me.
Our focus needs to be not only on the specific assets of terrorists,
but also on identifying their methods and eliminating their sources
of funding. The events of 2 weeks ago, it is because of that that
we are now faced with another group of thugs. We used to refer
just to drug thugs. But now the terrorists that are able to launder
illegal proceeds to pay for their activities, must be included. For
them, money, access to it and to the mechanisms for placing it in
the legitimate economy are the equivalents of their war industries.
And to strike at them, we must strike at their ability to wage war.
That reality has increased the importance to what we are here
talking about today. Two weeks ago, we might have said, passing
these bills was an important thing to do. It seems to me, passing
these bills now is an imperative.
These bills, of course, are not new. The elements in them have
received careful consideration over the last several years because
of money laundering, particularly as related to drug trafficking.
These bills are not full of hastily assembled items. They contain
needed changes and add important tools to our arsenal. We also
need to work with the banking and the financial services industry
to ensure that we act smart as we go quickly down this road. We
also need to see that they are on board. This is not a burden that
government here or elsewhere can carry alone. We need to combine
all of our strengths and our capabilities. But circumstances de-
mand meaningful action now and these bills give useful, important
tools of adding them to our toolkit.
So even though we are here talking about legislation, I think we
are here to plead with bankers everywhere who are in as much
harms way of terrorists as anybody else in America. Normally in
11
government, we respect bankers relationships with each other.

This has been a very cozy community, and I do not say that in a
denigrating way. This community has certain sensitivities in the
banking communityrespect for each others relationships with cli-
ents, kind of the lack of transparency that my colleague has al-
ready talked about, maintaining privacy, respect for secrecy. Well,
in normal times, I think we would also back up and respect that.
But these are not normal times, Mr. Chairman. I think it is time
to put these sensitivities that we have respected within the bank-
ing community, to put them aside. And in a sense, we are here not
just to legislate, we are here to plead to have the ultimate of co-
operation of the United States bankers and international bankers
in this effort to defeat terrorism.
Without this cooperation, without even ideas from them, without
even their coming to government and saying, you are overlooking
something here by not going at it this way. This is the sort of mobi-
lization of the private sector as well as the public sector if we are
going to defeat terrorism.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, Senator Grassley, thank you very
much. I think that was an extremely thoughtful statement and I
want to pick up on just two points in it.
First of all, the legislation we are considering has been well de-
veloped. As you point out, it is not hasty. In fact, Senator Kerrys
legislation was reported out by the House Banking Committee in
the last Congress on a vote of 33 to 1 that came out of the Com-
mittee deliberation.
Senator Levins legislation, as I indicated earlier, reflects a long
process of very thorough and careful hearings. In fact, I think your
reports stand about this high [indicating], if I am not mistaken,
coming out of that Committee.
Senator LEVIN. Almost as tall as my newest grandchild, as a
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Chairman SARBANES. Fair enough. And Senator Grassley, I think
your observation about the participation and cooperation of the pri-
vate sector is very important. They can be extremely helpful. They
know what these practices are.
And the kind of just resistance to any action at all I think has
to be jettisoned now and there has to be a different attitude that
says, well, we have to have legislation. We have to tighten up this
system and strengthen it. We are here to provide some ideas and
to help move this forward. I appreciate those comments very much.
I am going to forego any questions to forward the agenda here
this morning. Do any of my colleagues have any questions of our
colleagues?
Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman? If I might just ask
Chairman SARBANES. Well, let me yield to Senator Shelby first.
Senator STABENOW. I was only going to say, Mr. Chairman I
have to preside at 10 a.m.
Senator SHELBY. I will yield to her, Mr. Chairman.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW
Senator STABENOW. Thank you. I do not really have a question.
I just wanted to thank you for holding the hearing and indicate my
12
strong support for these efforts, and apologize in advance for hav-
ing to leave the Committee to preside over the Senate.
But I am hopeful I will be back before the hearing is concluded.
Thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Shelby.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I want to thank my colleagues for their work. I have a few ques-
tions and maybe you answered them in your detailed statements.
How do you get into the extraterritorial way that we would enforce
this? This is very important if we are going to do it, and I think
it has to be done. I agree with all of you and I commend all three.
How do you do the extraterritorial reach. Carl? John?
Senator LEVIN. In a couple of ways. First, you can require our
bank
Senator SHELBY. It is central to this, is not it?
Senator LEVIN. It is an important issue. First, you can require
our banks under the circumstances that we set forth to require
that, where there is a correspondent account under the cir-
cumstances described with a bank abroad, that that bank disclose
its banking customers to our bank so that we have disclosure, var-
ious types of disclosure under different circumstances. But, none-
theless, disclosure of who that foreign banks banking customers
are under our circumstances.
Second, we allow for the freezing of assets. There is no reason
why a correspondent bank account should not be subject to the
same freeze of assetsif I used the word seizure, I meant freeze
the same freezing of assets as an American individuals accounts
can be frozen. Where there is probable cause that a crime has been
committed, then we allow the freezing of assets.
Senator SHELBY. Due process.
Senator LEVIN. Due process. We have due process very carefully
laid out. Senator Gramm is surely right. You want to have due
process and a right to appeal a freezing of an account. But right
now, we do not permit the freezing of a correspondent account of
the assets in that account except under almost impossible proofs.
You have to prove that the bank itself was involved in the criminal
activity. It is not enough to prove that the criminals money is in
that corresponding account.
Senator SHELBY. Apparently, we do not have the tools to do the
job.
Senator LEVIN. And we need that tool, too, to freeze assets in the
correspondent account.
Finally, through service or process and jurisdiction over foreign
banks that have correspondent accounts, we can have longer reach
for our courts.
Those are three ways in which we can accomplish the goal you
set forth.
Senator SHELBY. Senator Kerry.
Senator KERRY. I would add to that that much of what we are
seeking to do is not in fact extraterritorial. Obviously, there are
limits on our capacity to order a bank in another country over
13
which you have nothere is no long-arm reach, and so forth, stat-

ute otherwise which would have any validity. But the powerful tool
here is the control over our own marketplace. That is essentially
what Senator Levin was describing.
We are not extraterritorial in requiring them to adhere to a
standard of behavior if they want to be in our country, or if they
want to be a corresponding bank with our banks. The behavior that
you are really controlling is our marketplace, our banks, and access
thereto. On those components which reach into extraterritoriality,
for instance, in the order President Bush issued on Monday, that
works for those countries like Italy or Germany where they have
the same laws we do with respect to freezing. But Spain does not.
So if you have a foreign bank and you say you are going to freeze
the assets and the assets in fact are partly in Spain, you cannot
do that unless they change their law or come to some other inter-
national agreement. That is why the multilateral component of this
is so critical. And to some degree, I would disagree with the early
indicators of the Bush Administration. They seem to be wanting to
be more unilateral in their approach, not as multilateral as we
have been in the last 10 years.
And I think that may have changed, incidentally, in the last
week or so. But my hope is it will change because there is a huge
multilateral component to this that will require ratcheting up the
diplomatic effort very significantly in order to get countries to
change their laws. So, again, you are not forcing them, but you are
leveraging them to the greatest degree possible through legitimate
means in our marketplace and our laws.
Senator SHELBY. To get them to raise the international stand-
ards, right?
Senator KERRY. Raise the international standard, or to live by
our standard if they want to participate in our marketplace. And
that is a powerful incentive, incidentally.
Senator SHELBY. How do you separate the legitimate banking
going on from what we would deem to be illegitimate? In other
words, do you review this? Somebody reviews these transfers?
Senator KERRY. First of all, you have your so-called SAR reports.
Senator SHELBY. We have that, I know.
Senator KERRY. And you build on that. Second, I mentioned in-
formation earlier.
Senator SHELBY. Do you think that is enough by itself, John?
Senator KERRY. Of course not. Absolutely not. Most of them sit
there. People do not know how to interpret them. Second, we do not
have enough people.
Go up to the financial assets controlhow many people are up
there now? Two? Three? I think we may have 3 or 4 people up
there, something like that, maximum. We do not have enough. We
have not put the computer capacity up to speed, the personnel ca-
pacity, et cetera, do a lot of this. But let me go one step further.
This is where the law enforcement component, intelligence com-
ponent, and what Senator Grassley was saying, the participation of
the bankers themselves. The international banking standard under
the Basel Convention is ostensibly, know your customer. Well, an
awful lot of bankers do know their customers. And there has been
a sad history of not sharing what they know about that customer,
14
where they know it is illicit and dangerous activity, with the rest
of the world. That is the behavior that has to change.
And so, if the flow of information is such, you will distinguish,
and if you have the adequate due process protections, law enforce-
ment has to have reasonable cause. There has to be a reasonable
standard here.
The Secretary of the Treasury under our bill has to do this in
consultation with the Secretary of State, Defense, NSA, et cetera.
So it seems to me that while nothing is perfect, what we have
today is in fact an empowerment of the criminal enterprises, an
empowerment of terrorism, and we have to begin to move in the
other direction in order to take back the control, mindful of the
need to be thoughtful about the due process components.
Senator SHELBY. Thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. Are there any other questions?
Senator GRAMM. Let me just make the following point.
We had 157,000 reports last year of questionable activities from
banks. We do not have the resources to process those now. And the
most immediate effect that can be had is providing the resources
to go through those 157,000 suspicious activity reports and try to
ferret out what is suspicious and what represents a threat.
I would say, in response to Richards point, the good thing that
the Administration has done, and it is unilateral, but it sends a
very clear signal, is that if you want to do banking in the United
States, you are going to have to meet these standards. And that I
think is the kind of signal that you need to send up front if you
expect to raise international standards.
And as I looked at the actions that the Bush Administration
took, that action was the strongest in terms of sending the right
signal. We cannot make banks in other countries do what we want
them to do. But we can set standards if they want to do business
in the United States. If you want to be in the banking business,
you have to do business in the United States. So, I think that is
the right approach. That was the focal point of what they did, and
I think that that was the right thing.
Senator LEVIN. If I could just add, that is the basis of our bills
as well.
Senator SHELBY. That is right. Your bills actually both target in
a way that has not been done in the past. So you are not caught
up in the morass of hundreds of thousands of reports. In fact, the
Kerry bill provides a procedure to identify special measures against
foreign jurisdictions or entities. So you identify, in a sense, the bad
actors. They are subjected to a very detailed scrutiny, and I think
that makes a lot of sense.
Senator KERRY. Can I just add one quick thing?
Chairman SARBANES. Certainly.
Senator KERRY. The question of this leverage is something we
honestly have been pushing for for some period of time and regret-
tably, have not had a sense of urgency about doing. So, I hope that
we will really follow through on it. But may I say to all of my col-
leagues on this Committee, I want to underscore this informational
component of it and the sharing of it and the structure by which
we do it.
15
It is not caught up in this bill. But the fellow, Rochman, who was
involved in the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993, was on the
watchlist in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt. And when he came over here,
there was just a complete wall between the watchlist, the intel-
ligence community, and the law enforcement community. So no-
body watched him and nobody tracked him. I am told that several
of the people involved in this most recent attack fall into that same
kind of barrier between intelligence and law enforcement.
Again, I repeat for all of us, this capacity to begin to improve our
gathering of information, the movement of the information, the
analysis of the information, and the personnel components of that,
are the front line of this war. And we need to do it.
Chairman SARBANES. Gentlemen, thank you very much, and we
look forward to consulting closely with you in the daysI want to
underscore thatin the days ahead, because this is a matter of im-
port and of some emergency. We appreciate your testimony.
Senator CORZINE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question with re-
gard to whether private banking standards are addressed in your
bills as much as the commercial banking and financial institutions
that are generally the subject, at least as I have read them?
So much of access of the system comes through the investment
process. Institutions such as hedge funds are left out of regulatory
structures and easy for funds to access. I would like to hear wheth-
er your bills address these kinds of other intermediaries, as op-
posed to clearly identifiable financial institutions.
Chairman SARBANES. Go ahead.
Senator LEVIN. Could I just respond briefly to that?
Chairman SARBANES. Yes.
Senator LEVIN. We do address the private banking situations in
our bill and require enhanced know-your-customer rules in the pri-
vate banking area based on the hearings that we had into the
abuses of private banking which were extensive hearings.
On to the latter part of your question, we actually have hearings
that we are going to be getting into in that area. They are not yet
covered in the bill, but the hearings that are scheduled by my Per-
manent Subcommittee on Investigations will get into that area.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you.
Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. Senator Schumer.
Senator SCHUMER. I just had one quick question as well. I put
in a bill with the late Senator Coverdale and Congressman Leach
very similar to yours, Senator. But here is the thing that plagues
us, Carl. How do you deal with other countries, and John touched
on this, that do not cooperate, which tend to be large countries?
That chart you had, which is the Sudan bank, we can cut them
out of America, but if we cannot cut them out of other major coun-
tries that have sophisticated banking systems, and those systems
deal with our banks, then, for all practical purposes, we have not
accomplished much.
And that is the fundamental dilemma that I have been wrestling
with this issue. Could either of youI know we talk about pres-
sure. But shouldnt we consider something further than pressure?
Senator KERRY. Yes.
16
Senator SCHUMER. Which is to say, if a large country with a so-

phisticated banking system continues to deal with the banks in one
of these small countries that we know are just designed to hide
money, that they will have to face penalties in dealing with our
banking system, because even the French or the Germans or the
British or the Japanese, which have huge banking systems, have
to be part of our system.
Otherwise, what I am worried about is they will justthey are
very clever and very nimble and these terrorists, as well as other
kinds of money launderers, will rejigger things and make their
base of operations another country that has a sophisticated bank-
ing system, but does not have the rules and laws that we have.
Senator KERRY. Senator Schumer, that is a very good question
and it is one that has been asked by the financial community for
a number of years. In fact, one of the arguments that you heard
against moving was, well, if you get too strict, they will move off-
shore and then you wind up diminishing your capacity. But I think
we have moved in the last 10 years, beginning, I might add, with
President Bush in 1989, and moving forward since then, there has
been a significant effort on the international front.
You are going to hear from former Assistant Secretary of State
Jonathan Winer, who negotiated a lot of these efforts internation-
ally. Others have been involved in this. The OECD is pressing this
issue now. We have urged the G7, G8, even G16, to become the
focus of this effort. If you have the developed world, essentially,
joining together in this effort and they seem to be, as a con-
sequence of what happened on September 11, then you really begin
to create a new structure. And so that is why I said a moment ago,
it has to be multilateral with a major ratcheting up of the diplo-
matic effort simultaneously. We cannot do all of this alone.
Senator LEVIN. And if I could just add one word. We have to also
be consistent. There is a very strong international effort in the area
of tax evasion, which we have lagged behind. So when we do that,
we are sending a mixed signal about the importance of the inter-
national community being involved in correcting some of these.
Senator SCHUMER. But am I wrong to think that if even one or
two major countries resist this pressure, that we then have a gap-
ing loophole here?
Senator LEVIN. There would still be access to our market, which
the Chairman has pointed out, and others, that they still want, and
that access is going to be restricted.
Senator SCHUMER. Well, that is the point. We might have to say
to a major country, if you do not do this, all your banks cannot deal
with us unless you join up with this. And I do not know whether
we say that through diplomacy. But when they resist, where do we
go from there? That is the question that has plagued me about this
for the longest time.
Senator KERRY. But, Senator Schumer, there is a level of reason-
ableness in these standards. It is very difficult for a nation that is
a member of the WTO, that is at the United Nations, Security
Council, elsewhere, participating in global affairs, to legitimately
resist the diminimus standards of accountability, transparency, ex-
change here, that most of the developed countries are utilizing any-
way in one form or another. There are not huge differences here,
17
frankly. There just are not. There may be nuances of particular law
or particular protection or access or rapidity with which somebody
has access to redress in the court system or something. Sure. But
the fundamentals that criminals should not be using the financial
marketplace with impunity, to be able to wage war against that
very marketplace. And what we are seeing in response, I think the
United Arab Emirates, the Saudi break of relations with the
Taliban, the current movement of countries to agree that they have
to become part of this effort, is because they recognize they are
threatened.
Every country is threatened by a terrorist organization that has
access to these financial services without accountability. And they
all recognize it is in their interest and in the interest of governance
and security to move in this direction. I think the weight of history
as well as the weight of reasonableness is on our side.
Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. I do not want to close out any of my col-
leagues. This is a very knowledgeable and informative panel. And
while a short while ago I was trying to move it along so we could
move ahead, I do not want any of my colleagues who have ques-
tions not to have the opportunity to put them. If there are, we will
do that. In fact, I will go to the regular order and move through
and recognize people for their 5 minutes if they wish to ask any
questions.
Senator LEVIN. Could I leave expressing the hope that money
laundering provisions be included in any anti-terrorism bill? That
is going to be an important test and it is coming up soon.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, that is why I said earlier that we
look for your counsel over the next few days, yes.
Thank you all very much. You have been extremely helpful.
Senator LEVIN. Thank you.
Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you.
If the next panel would come up and take their seats, I will now
recognize the Members of the Committee for any brief statements
they may wish to make.
Senator Johnson.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief
and submit a full statement for the record.
I simply want to commend you for rescheduling this important
hearing so quickly. As we all know, anti-money laundering tactics
will play a critical role in our war against terrorism. And I would
like to note that the Chairman had the foresight to schedule a
hearing on this topic well before the attacks of 2 weeks ago.
Senator Sarbanes identified early on that our National Money
Laundering Strategy is a critical weapon in our arsenal against ter-
rorists, drug lords, organized crime syndicates, and others, and I
am pleased that this Committee will play a critical role in our Na-
tions anti-money laundering efforts.
I would also like to thank President Bush for taking decisive ac-
tion this week to move forward with at least the first step in a si-
18
lent war on the financial assets of those who so cowardly attacked

America 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the challenges to deal with
money laundering will be one of the critical pieces in our overall
strategy against terrorism and I would like to commend our col-
leagues for bringing forward legislation. I look forward to reviewing
the Presidents plan.
And as our colleague and friend, Senator Levin of Michigan,
noted, we cannot have a war on terrorism without also have a sig-
nificant component dealing with the choking off of financial re-
sources available to these terrorists.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for rescheduling this hearing. I
look forward to the testimony and working with my colleagues
across the aisle on a bipartisan effort to make our significant con-
tribution through this Committee to the war on terrorism.
Chairman SARBANES. Very good.
Senator Shelby.
Senator SHELBY. I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, that my entire
statement be made part of the record. I am looking forward to
hearing from the Justice Department and the Treasury.
Chairman SARBANES. Good. Your full statement will be included
in the record.
Senator Reed.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator REED. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
commend you for holding this hearing. It is incredibly important.
We face a daunting challenge to counteract terrorists who have at-
tacked our country. There are many different responses that we
will have to undertakeintelligence gathering, military operations.
But not the least of these is disrupting the financing of these ter-
rorist networks.
And to that end, this hearing is extremely important. I look for-
ward to the witnesses today and also to prompt action on legisla-
tion to provide the tools that our Government needs to counteract
money laundering and terrorist financing throughout the world.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. Very good.
Senator Allard.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have an open-
ing statement I would like to make a part of the record.
record.
Senator ALLARD. I just want to congratulate you on the hearing.
It is timely and something that we need to work on.
I do think that we need to figure out a way to evaluate a meas-
ured response. In other words, as we pass these rules, regulations,
requirements, and reporting, measure in some way how effective
they really are. I think that is an important concept.
Chairman SARBANES. Good. Thank you very much.
As Senator Schumer observed earlier, he and Senator Coverdale,
our late and very highly regarded colleague, had joined together in
19
introducing the Foreign Money Laundering Deterrence and Anti-

Corruption Act in 1999. That bill had a number of very important
provisions in it. Some of the aspects of that have already been dis-
cussed, and I will not take the time now to review the items.
Senator Schumer, we would be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES S. SCHUMER
Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Chairman Sarbanes. And I
want to thank you for your leadership and your ongoing interest
in this issue.
I think as was mentioned, this hearing was scheduled and your
interest predated what happened here. And of course, now we are
going to move very quickly because of what happened. Let me just
make a couple of points.
First, the timing of this hearing is so important because these
kinds of well-organized, well-funded terrorist attacks are at the
heart of this seemingly intractable problem of money laundering.
The funds they use that are either proceeds from or investments
in illicit activities seem to filter through the international banking
system like water. Jurisdictions that provide total opacity for the
owners of these accounts and by statute refuse to cooperate with
international law enforcement are the spigot.
There are countries that set up banking systems that then go on
the web to brag that no one will find out who you are, where your
money comes from, and where it is going to. A Yahoo search pro-
duces over 30,000 websites that provide corporate structures and
bank accounts that allow for the transfer of funds to places like
I cannot even pronounce some of themVaunatu and Naru in the
South Pacific, and St. Vincent and Anguila in the Caribbean. And
Treasurys FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
estimates that $4.8 trillion in hidden assets in these jurisdictions
is concealed to cover up some crime.
That is a pretty powerful statement, and this is not just ter-
rorism, obviously, but money laundering, tax evasion, and so many
other things. And the domestic laws of these jurisdictions make it
a crimelisten to thisa crime to divulge any information about
the banks officers, depositors, transfers, or any financial activity
relating to banks to law enforcement, without exception.
Our law enforcement people go there, try to find out what is
going on, and the bank officer or the bank cannot tell under pen-
alty of law. In these countries, they have made it a business.
Anguila, for instance, charges $60,000 to open a bank, $20,000
a year to keep it there, and then you are completely on your own,
except, as Senator Levins charts show, you have complete access
to our system. And I would like to just switch the focus a little bit.
I think it is going to be very hard to get total global cooperation
on this. It has been the history in the past that we make effort
after effort and then you just get a couple of bad apples that spoil
the bunch. But if we can get rid of the opacity, if we can make this
transparent and we can trace the money, even if it is going to flow,
we can make a huge difference in finding out these people and
their sources, et cetera.
And that is an important point to make, that in our new elec-
tronic world, money just flows. But what stopped us is the terror-
20
ists and others, money launderers, drug runners, find the places
where no law enforcement can go and find out what goes on.
If we want to stop the actual transfers of money, we should con-
siderI am not advocating it yet because it is a major step and I
agree with Senator Kerry that the diplomatic efforts have to be
firstbut we should even consider penalties on big countries that
do not help cooperate. We are at that stage.
So, Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you. I look forward to par-
ticipating in your efforts to put together a strong bill. I want to
thank our witnesses, present and past, for testifying.
Chairman SARBANES. Senator Bayh.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EVAN BAYH
Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your foresight on
this issue and for the emphasis you have placed upon it.
Let us make no mistake about it. Our attempts to dry up the
funding for these terrorist organizations literally will take weapons
out of the hands of those who wish to do us harm.
Our attempts to combat money laundering, Mr. Chairman, are
the financial equivalent of launching smart bombs, Smart weapons,
against the terrorists and those who aid and abet them. So, I want
to thank you for your leadership in gathering us here today.
Since September 11, the outlines of Osama bin Ladens financial
network have become clearer. He has relied upon electronic bank-
ing, ties to a number of charities in the Middle East and elsewhere.
But many experts feel that the most likely source of the funds
used to perpetrate the attacks on the United States were derived
either from small wire transfers or from an informal banking sys-
tem known as Hawalas. This system is used to transfer large
amounts of money from one country to another without the cash
ever crossing national boundaries.
Mr. Chairman, in todays edition of one of the large national
daily newspapers, the Hawala banking system was described as fol-
lows. It relies on something older than money itselfa persons
word. Nothing could be more discreet. There is no need to smuggle
large amounts of cash from one country to another or to fill out
bank forms that can draw unwanted attention. No need, in fact, for
any detailed bank records whatsoever. A person simply hands over
cash at one end and is paid out at the other end, leaving virtually
no paper trail to follow.
This is an area of inquiry, Mr. Chairman, I think would warrant
some of the Committees time and attention with your blessing, of
course. It is beyond the purview of many of our existing laws. In
1993, however, Congress did act, requiring both regulation report-
ing of Hawalas. Both the past and the previous Administration,
however, have delayed the implementation of the regulations. The
previous Administration, until later in 1999, and the current Ad-
ministration until June 30 of 2002. These regulations, Mr. Chair-
man, and an extension upon them could be important tools in the
hands of law enforcement in drying up the funds available to ter-
rorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding these
hearings and would respectfully suggest we look at several actions,
some of which were touched upon by our previous panelists.
21
First, as I mentioned, we need to look closely at the activities of

the Hawalas to see how they are regulated in other jurisdictions.
They happen to be illegal in Pakistan, for example. To separate
those that are legitimate from those that are not, and to do what
we can to close down the illegitimate ones or their activities in this
country. As Senator Kerry mentioned, to prohibit banks who do
business with terrorists from doing business in this country. As
Senator Schumer suggested, it is time to get serious about this, to
take a more hard-nosed approach. I could not agree more, Senator,
with your suggestion.
We also need to look at stopping commercial enterprises from
doing business with commercial enterprises owned and operated by
known terrorist organizations. Osama bin Laden has invested sig-
nificantly in some commercial enterprises. They should not escape
our attention, either. And we should ensure that aid that is given
by our country to those overseas is accounted for and goes to those
for whom it is intended and not to diver it.
And Mr. Chairman, I would finally suggest that we look at the
possibility of enlisting the aid of the World Bank and the Inter-
national Monetary Fund in the war against money laundering and
in some ways perhaps tie assistance from those organizations to
the cooperation of countries in this battle.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh.
Senator Corzine.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Senator CORZINE. Yes. I have a complete statement that I would
ask be put in the record.
record.
Senator CORZINE. I congratulate you on your foresight here as
well, Mr. Chairman.
This is a subject that needs an extraordinarily comprehensive
view of. The kinds of things that Senator Schumer talked about in
regard to global cooperation are certainly key. But the need to
make sure that we do not limit our sightline to financial institu-
tions and regulated institutions is just as important as dealing only
with financial institutions. So much of the access into the system
comes from ways that are not necessarily opening a bank account
and transferring money. Much of this is done in cash.
The efforts that Congresswoman Roukema was going to talk
about, smuggling of cash, the commercial transactions that Senator
Bayh talked about, and frankly, unregulated money managers ac-
cess to the system without the identity of those who own the ac-
counts, tend to be ways that are very easy for the process to get
started. And being a State that has a casino, there are enormous
amounts of ability to access systems in additional commercial
transactions. So, I hope that we do not get a sense that we are
somehow solving the problem if we limit this to financial institu-
tions and just simple, straight-forward financial transactions.
Thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. Our panel now consists of the recently con-
firmed Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, Jimmy
22
Gurule , and Michael Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General for

the Criminal Division. In their respective capacities in the Treas-
ury Department and in the Justice Department, they are respon-
sible for developing and implementing the Bush Administrations
national money laundering strategies.
Now, to be very clear about this, the formulation of the National
Money Laundering Strategy was underway before these events
took place. In other words, pursuant to the Grassley legislation
that I mentioned earlier. And the Administration has come in with
that report. But it did not come after the events of September 11.
It was being developed prior to the events, just as this hearing on
money laundering had been scheduled before the events of Sep-
tember 11. So, we are very pleased to have the Administration here
and, gentlemen, we are looking forward to hearing from you.
I do not know if you have worked out an arrangement between
yourselves. Mr. Gurule , are you to go first?
STATEMENT OF JIMMY GURULE

UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Mr. GURULE . Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, and other distinguished Mem-
bers of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share with
you the Treasury Departments ongoing commitment to the fight
against money laundering. In light of the tragic events of Sep-
tember 11, I am more convinced than ever of the importance and
necessity of a comprehensive money laundering strategy. I know
that the Members feel the same way and I look forward to sharing
with you some of the key aspects of President Bushs plan to com-
bat domestic and international money laundering.
Let me begin by saying that criminal acts of violence, such as the
horrific terrorist acts of September 11, need more than just cun-
ning leadership and dedicated followers to be successful. Such un-
dertakings also require extensive financial funding. Let me be
clearthe Treasury Department is committed to identifying the
sources of funding used to underwrite attacks of this nature and
will take whatever action is necessary to shut them down. Al-
though the complexities of money laundering have long been asso-
ciated with concealing the true nature of funds that are generated
by drug cartels, and other criminal activity, the tragedies of Sep-
tember 11 also underscore the need for aggressive and vigilant
anti-money laundering efforts which target the movement of funds
into this country for the purpose of criminal activityespecially
funds earmarked for terror. In response to this need, the imple-
mentation of the 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy in-
cludes several specific steps to dismantle and disrupt the financing
of terrorist activities.
I would like to take a few moments to summarize the key provi-
sions of the National Money Laundering Strategy, but at the same
time highlight some of the steps consistent with that blueprint that
the Bush Administration has undertaken since September 11. On
Monday, President Bush stated, We will direct every resource at
our command to win the war against terrorists, every means of di-
23
plomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforce-

ment, every financial influence.
We will starve the terrorists of funding. I am here to tell you
that this is the mandate of the Treasury Departmentto starve
the terrorists of funding. This is the mandate of the Office of En-
forcement at Treasury. To accomplish that goal, the Enforcement
Office has implemented the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Cen-
ter. The goal of the Center, or FTAT is the acronym that has been
used, is three-fold.
The first goal is to map the financial infrastructure of all ter-
rorist organizations worldwide. So while at the moment we are cer-
tainly focusing on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, it is not limited
to this particular organization or organizations, but is more broad
in its scope. Second, it is intended to shut down the source of fund-
raising of these organizations. And third, curtail their ability to
move money through the international banking system, including
the U.S. domestic banking system. Its approach is preventative,
proactive, and strategic.
It relies upon interagency cooperation and with respect to the
tracking center, we have undertaken efforts to work closely with
the Department of Justice, specifically the FBI and all of the Treas-
urys law enforcement agencies, including the IRS, criminal inves-
tigations, the Secret Service, Customs, as well as Defense and the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
In addition, the Department of the Treasury has undertaken sub-
stantial efforts with respect to international cooperation. Everyone
here certainly appreciates that the challenge before us with respect
to anti-terrorism efforts is global in nature. And therefore, the law
enforcement response must be in kind global.
With respect to Treasurys efforts, we are undertaking efforts not
only to block assets in domestic banks that are related to the 27
terrorist entities that were identified pursuant to the Executive
Order signed by President Bush on Monday of this week, but we
are also looking to cooperate with respect to blocking those funds
located in foreign bank accounts. And with respect to that effort,
we are seizing upon recent gestures by our allies who have offered
their cooperation and condolences with respect to the terrorist
events in New York City and in Washington, DC.
We are seeking to seize upon that momentum, to cause them to
not only express their goodwill, their support, but to take concrete
action with respect to assets, bank accounts that are attributable
to these terrorist organizations and entities. And we believe that
we are making some substantial progress in that direction.
In addition, we are working aggressively with our partners in the
Financial Action Task Force, or FATF. As you know, the Treasury
Department leads the U.S. delegation with respect to FATF. Again,
we work closely with the Department of Justice in that effort. We
have currently reached out to our counterparts in FATF to ensure
that we focus on revising the 40 recommendations that serve as the
measuring stick which FATF measures whether a country is co-
operating with respect to implementing a strong anti-money laun-
dering regime. And we are looking to focus those efforts on terrorist
activities and prohibit banks from maintaining accounts where the
money is attributable or traceable to terrorist organizations.
24
With respect to the 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy,

let me briefly comment on the key provisions of that strategy.
When it comes to law enforcement efforts, the strategy seeks to
focus and concentrate finite and limited Federal law enforcements
resources on major money laundering operations. We seek to focus
on the financial operations that are underwriting the activities of
international drug cartels, international terrorist organizations, as
well as organizations that traffic in firearms. We are seeking to
focus our efforts where they will have the greatest impact. And we
believe the greatest impact will be felt, will be realized with respect
to these large-scale money laundering operations. To that end, we
are going to be enhancing, seeking to enhance our efforts with re-
spect to the use of the criminal and civil forfeiture laws.
We believe that it is important that any strategy with respect to
money laundering not only focuses on the trail of the money, but
also seeks to seize those monies, forfeit those monies to the United
States. So, we will see an enhanced effort with respect to utiliza-
tion, enforcement of our Federal asset forfeiture laws.
We will be relying in large part to implement the strategy on the
HIFCAs, the High-Intensity Money Laundering and Related Fi-
nancial Crimes Areas. These are kind of super money laundering
task forces that will be used to focus on these large-scale money
laundering operations. The strategy designates two additional
HIFCAs in addition to the four HIFCAs that existed prior. Those
two new HIFCAs are located in San Francisco and Chicago. These
HIFCAs are interagency in nature. I had an opportunity to have
several conversations with Mr. Chertoff with respect to the oper-
ation of these HIFCAs and how the Department of Treasury law
enforcement agencies can work closely hand-in-hand, close coordi-
nation, with the Department of Justice.
Chairman SARBANES. Why not put the location of the other four
on the record?
Mr. GURULE . Thank you, Mr. Chairman The other four HIFCAs
include a HIFCA in New York, New Jerseythis is often referred
to as the El Dorado Task Force. It is the largest Federal money
laundering task force in the country. Also, there is a HIFCA in
Puerto Rico, and in Los Angeles. Last, a HIFCA that focuses more
on a system of money laundering, and that is a HIFCA that is fo-
cusing on the black market peso exchange system of financial
money laundering. So these HIFCAs are central to our law enforce-
ment anti-money laundering efforts.
A second key provision with respect to the strategy and a way
in which it departs dramatically from prior strategies is the em-
phasis being placed on accountability. Secretary ONeill strongly
believes that we in law enforcement must be able to measure re-
sults. He is looking for results, not simply Federal law enforcement
activity.
It is not enough that we are actively engaged in investigating
money laundering operations. It is not enough that we have en-
hanced the number of HIFCAs across the country. He is looking for
results. He is looking at the bottom line.
At the end of the day, he wants me to be able to report to him
which strategies have proven to be most effective and why. And if
25
the strategy is not working, then it should be discarded and we

should be focusing our law enforcement efforts on other strategies.
With respect to this emphasis on accountability, we are going to
be putting in place a reporting system that will track the money
of money laundering cases, number of arrests and convictions with
respect to those cases, a reporting system that is going to be focus-
ing on money laundering related forfeitures, so that we can track
from year to year the dollar amount of money that is going into the
Department of Justice forfeiture account, as well as the Treasury
asset forfeiture account.
But we are not simply going to be focusing on numbers. We are
going to be looking at the types of investigations that we develop
and we pursue, to see whether these types of investigations are
having an impact on money laundering activities in this country.
We are going to be looking at the complexity of the size of these
operations as well.
And then, last, we are going to be looking to see whether our
strategy has an impact, a positive impact, with respect to the cost
of laundering money. As you know, the efforts with respect to laun-
dering funds, the individuals who participate in these efforts
charge a commission. They charge a fee for their activities, for
their talents, their nefarious and illicit talents.
We think if we are making an impact, that the commission price
will go up because it is riskier for them to undertake this type of
efforts and they are running the risk of being prosecuted and incar-
cerated for lengthy prison terms. So we are intending to track
those numbers as well with respect to the fees charged.
Next, preventative efforts.
We certainly understand that the banking industry has to be an
important partner in this effort. We need to work more closely with
the banking and financial industry to assist in this national and
global effort. We are looking at ways in which we can strengthen
that partnership. We can work more closely with the financial
banking system. At the same time, we are seeking to expand the
SARs to the money-service businesses, as Senator Bayh referred
to, as well as broker-dealers and casinos. Also, we need to ensure
that the information that we are receiving at the Treasury and
that FinCEN is analyzing is valuable information.
With respect to the CTRs, we know that approximately 12 mil-
lion CTRs are filed every year. Our sense is that at least 30 per-
cent of those CTRs have little or no value to law enforcement. And
because they have no value to law enforcement, they should not be
reported to the Treasury Department. So, we are seeking to work
with the banking industry with respect to statutory exemptions
that have been put in place that exempt the filing of certain cur-
rency transaction reports to ensure compliance.
Chairman SARBANES. I want to be very clear on that point. As
I understand it, under existing law, there is a waiver, an exemp-
tion procedure, that can be invoked which would not require the fil-
ing of those reports. Is that correct?
Mr. GURULE . That is correct.
Chairman SARBANES. That existing provision in law is not being
utilized. Is that correct?
Mr. GURULE . In my opinion, it is not being fully utilized.
26
Chairman SARBANES. It is your intention to work with the pri-

vate sector to have a better understanding of that.
Mr. GURULE . Yes. And I have already undertaken efforts in that
direction, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. All right. Anything else, Mr. Gurule .
Mr. GURULE . With respect to legislation, let me speak briefly.
The Department of Justice has been working on a legislation ini-
tiative, anti-money laundering legislative initiative. I have had an
opportunity to speak at length with Mr. Chertoff with respect to
that effort. I have had an opportunity to review the legislation that
they are proposing. I believe that it is a good piece of legislation
and the Treasury Department supports that effort.
With respect to the Kerry bill, I am very pleased to hear Senator
Kerrys comments with respect to a due process provision because
the Treasury Department likewise believes that that is essential.
And so, we welcome the opportunity to engage in discussions with
respect to crafting what the due process or what processes do
under these circumstances. But at the same time, I understand
your direction, Chairman Sarbanes, that this effort must be done
on a fast track. As you stated, we are dealing with days with re-
spect to any new legislation. We are anxious to meet with the Sen-
ators staff, your staff, to carve out that addition, if you will, to the
Kerry bill.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, we intend to have a very intense con-
sultation, both amongst Members, certainly on the Committee, but
including the Members who have taken initiatives and have pro-
posals, and with the Administration, with both the Department of
the Treasury and the Department of Justice, with an eye to formu-
lating a piece of legislation that draws the best out of all of that
process, takes into account important questions that have been
raised and tries to, if possible, reach a consensus on an effective
and directed piece of legislation. And we welcome your statement
and we look forward to working very closely with you. But as you
say, this is on and should be on a fast track.
There are things happening elsewhere in the Congress, too. And
to be part of that process, we have to move with some vigor and
some energy here, and we obviously intend to do just that.
Mr. GURULE . And last, let me also commend Senator Levin for
his leadership with respect to this very important issue. I have had
an opportunity to review the Levin bill. There are several provi-
sions in the Levin bill that I think we can support, again, and I
look forward to working with your staff and Senator Levins staff
on those issues.
In conclusion, the Treasury Department has language with re-
spect to some legislative initiatives on money laundering that we
would like to have added to the Kerry bill. We do have that lan-
guage and we can bring that up to you as early as tomorrow.
So thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to respond-
ing to any questions that you might have.
Chairman SARBANES. Very good. Thank you for your statement.
Assistant Attorney General Chertoff.
27
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. I just have to add, it is nice to have you
back before the Committee in a different capacity, if I may note,
from previous appearances.
Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, if you would like. A lot of us
liked you in that other capacity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CHERTOFF. Well, it is nice to be back. But times change and
things on the front burner become different. And we obviously have
something very hot on the front burner.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, and distinguished Members of
the Committee, I am delighted to be here in support of the 2001
National Money Laundering Strategy that was recently released.
And also, I am particularly delighted to be here in the wake of a
legislative proposal which we have submitted, which addresses I
think the urgent need for reform in the money laundering area.
I am going to be very brief. I am going to touch on just some of
the highlights and then I will be delighted to answer questions. I
would request that my full statement be made part of the record.
Chairman SARBANES. It will be included in the record.
Mr. CHERTOFF. We are obviously sitting here in the wake of a
terrible event 2 weeks ago which has kept all of us busy in a vari-
ety of different settings. But it is very timely that we are address-
ing money laundering because it is a key element in the strategy
toward combatting not only terrorism, but also other serious forms
of international crime.
In the wake of this event, we know one thing. We know that if
terror operates in cells, the lifeblood of those cells is money. They
cannot exist, survive, and flourish if they cannot fund their activi-
ties. So it becomes critical that we strike at that funding.
The mandate from the President is very clearwe have to pre-
vent terrorism. We have to disrupt it. And we have to incapacitate
those who practice it. As part of that effort, all the agencies of the
Federal Government are working together currently to examine the
information and evidence that we can collect on the financial activi-
ties of terrorists and to pursue those terrorists and their supporters
and economic aiders and abetters anywhere we can find them. So
in taking that approach, it becomes very critical that we look at the
tools we have in our toolbox to strike at those economic supporters.
And money laundering seems to us to be the most vital way in
which we can approach that.
We have a lot of laws which were great laws when they were
passed 10 or 15 years ago, but have not kept pace with the times.
And I might add that when we talk about money laundering and
the targets of our money laundering effort, we talk not only about
terrorists, but also we talk about international organized crime,
international drug dealing, international corruption, not only be-
cause these are bad in themselves, but also because, we cannot dif-
ferentiate between terrorism, organized crime, and drug dealing.
These groups do not hold themselves independently. They work
with one another. Terrorists get engaged in drug activity. They
28
have relationships with organized crime. So that we cannot simply

lock the barn door for the horse that just got out. We have to go
and lock all the other barn doors that are out there.
The legislative proposal which the Department has put forward,
I think in many respects, is, if not identical, very similar to por-
tions of Senator Levins bill, focuses on a number of both large and
small efforts to fix and improve the money laundering laws. And
let me review just a few of them.
First, under the proposed approach we would take, laundering of
the proceeds of foreign crimes, an increased number of foreign
crimes, would become a crime in this country. Simply put, we do
not want to be a safe haven for the ill-gotten gains of corrupt inter-
national bribe-takers or for terrorists who commit violent acts
abroad. We have to expand our law so that we can attack those
who would launder the proceeds of foreign crimes in this country.
At the same time, we need to have the authority to enforce for-
eign court judgments against terrorists in this country, both be-
cause we do not want their money here, and to show our foreign
partners that we will work with them in attacking terrorism.
Second, correspondent banks. Some of the greatest experts in the
world on the impact of correspondent banking have testified in the
earlier panel. I think we need to respond to the dangers that they
have identified. We need to be able to say to correspondent banks
that they cannot raise an innocent owner defense to protect the as-
sets of foreign terrorists that are being held in foreign cor-
respondent bank accounts in U.S. banks. And the legislation that
we would propose would attack that.
We need to be able to say to foreign correspondent banks that
if they want to have bank accounts with U.S. banks, they have to
appoint people who will respond to subpoenas and to American
process so that we can get the information that we need to track
down and prosecute those who launder terrorist bank accounts and
terrorist monies.
Finally, we need to deal with the movement of cash outside the
formal banking system. Where there is bulk transfer of money in
interstate or foreign commerce, we need to be able to make that a
criminal offense.
That is part of our proposal. And at the same time, we need to
strengthen the criminal laws against smuggling cash illegally into
our own country.
These parts of the package and the other parts put together a
comprehensive approach to deal with money laundering. And I
might say that we do not have pride of authorship. Many of the
proposals here have been proposed by Members of this body and
Members of the House of Representatives. They have been looked
at for years. I think the consensus is they are sound and effective.
Mr. Chairman, we very much look forward to working with the
Committee, other Members of the Senate, Members of the House,
in moving within days to put together an effective package that we
can get into law and we can begin to enforce.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much. As I indicated, it is
our intention to work very closely with you in that endeavor.
Senator Gramm.
29
Senator GRAMM. Well, let me thank both of you for your excellent
testimony.
Mr. Gurule , I would like to ask you a question. I have had an
opportunity to talk to the Secretary. I first simply want to say that
I appreciate the approach that has been taken by the Administra-
tion. I think the actions that you have taken thus far have been
excellent. And I am especially appreciative of the Secretarys sensi-
tivity to the fact that, while we want to grab terrorists by the
throat and not let them go to get a better grip, we are defending
basic rights in this country. We have been successful with a system
that is based on the rule of law.
I would like to ask you specifically about the Secretarys discre-
tionary power. Quite frankly, the factor that was an impediment
last year in the adoption of this bill really boiled down to one issue:
the unilateral power of the Secretary of the Treasury to take action
without any necessity of issuing any findings, without any account-
ability on the Secretarys part, even though that action might have
profound consequences to people in the private sector. One of the
options that I proposed then and that I will be supporting now is
the following.
If the Secretary determinesand let me go back to my example
about France. If the Secretary determined that we were not getting
proper cooperation from France, then the Secretary would have the
power either to impose a penalty on French banks operating in the
United States, which would be my preference because the problem
is with the French government and not with our own Government,
but he would also have the power, under the Kerry bill, to force
American banks in France, in essence, to close their doors.
Now, I have felt that when you are talking about such powers,
first of all, it is obvious that we need them. But the question is,
what should be the system of checks and balances?
And I would like to just throw out two things that I would appre-
ciate the Treasury examining to determine whether you have a bet-
ter way. It seems to me that if the Secretary of the Treasury is
going to make a unilateral decision to force American banks to shut
down their operations in another country, the Secretary should be
required to issue findings which are potentially rebuttable in court.
There should be some system whereby the findings of the Secretary
in making the decision are made public, or if they cannot be made
public because of security concerns, perhaps we should require the
Secretary or the Secretarys designee to appear before a Federal
judge to present this evidence so that there is some review, rather
than giving one person this massive unilateral power with no
checks and balances or, as you have said, with no accountability.
I would like to get your reaction to that.
Mr. GURULE . Well, as you know, the Kerry bill, before any spe-
cial measures are ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, would
require the Secretary of the Treasury to find a primary money
laundering concern. That is a term of art under the Kerry bill. And
that primary money laundering concern would be with respect to
a particular correspondent account.
However, in addition, the Kerry bill would require the Secretary
to do so in consultation with several Federal agencies, or heads of
agencies, including the Attorney General, the Secretary of State,
30
the Chairman of the Fed, the Secretary of Commerce, and the U.S.
Trade Representative. So there is a consultative process that is re-
quired under the Kerry bill. So it is not simply a single individual
taking action unilaterally.
With respect to the due process concern, I do believe that funda-
mental fairness requires that an affected bank be afforded an op-
portunity, first of all, notice, and then an opportunity for comment.
In the event that maybe what appears to be suspicious on the sur-
face, there is a legitimate explanation. I think that there should be
an opportunity for the bank to come in. And it could be after the
fact. I am not suggesting that the notice and comment must in
every case be
Chairman SARBANES. It would have to be after the fact, other-
wise, they could move the money.
Mr. GURULE . I understand.
Chairman SARBANES. I understand that the President, when he
issued his Executive Order, did it at midnight and then had the
press conference the next morning. And he did that in order to
avoid the possibility that the money would just move.
Mr. GURULE . I agree. I agree. The Kerry bill gives the Secretary
certain discretion. I think it is important that the Secretary have
the ability to exercise that discretion in an expeditious way to
avoid exactly the problem that you have highlighted.
After there is an imposition of the special measures that are set
forth in the bill, again, I think that fundamental fairness requires
that the bank have an opportunity to come in and make its case
to the Secretary that the transactions are legitimate transactions.
There is no money laundering involved, if in fact that is the case.
I think the real question comes down to, what process is due? What
should that procedure look like? And I am prepared to meet and
engage in discussions on that precise issue.
Chairman SARBANES. I just want to note that Senator Gramms
use of France was completely hypothetical or by way of illustration.
Senator GRAMM. Completely.
[Laughter.]
Chairman SARBANES. Because in fact, the French
Senator GRAMM. I decided to use it twice because having already
made people in France mad, I did not want to add another country.
[Laughter.]
I used Hong Kong last time and then I thought, well, gosh, I may
be going back there some day. I prefer to speak in examples rather
than beating around the bush theoretically.
Chairman SARBANES. I understand that, but you know about sen-
sitivities, Gallic sensitivities in particular. In all fairness, I do want
to read from the FATF mutual evaluations that were made.
The initiatives of France and its 2 year presidency of FATF have
contributed considerably to the success achieved so far. By adopt-
ing measures often more binding than those contained in the FATF
recommendations and by introducing a system of compulsory re-
porting of suspicious transactions for all financial and nonfinancial
professions, France has created a real model for money laundering
control. And then they say it was done fairly recently and this was
the first round back in the mid-1990s, so they do not go through
on how effectively it has been enforced.
31
I just wanted to get that on the record and make sure thatbe-
cause we need all the friends we can get, and those that are work-
ing at it, we want to acknowledge that they are working at it.
Senator Reed.
Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Since money laundering is an integral part of our overall
counter-terrorism strategy, what role is envisioned for Governor
Ridge with his new position as the leader of homeland operations?
Or has any role been even thought about yet? Either Mr. Gurule
or Mr. Chertoff.
Mr. GURULE . It is a good question. I think the specific, precise
role has not yet been defined. It is my understanding that this of-
fice will be used to coordinate anti-terrorism activities and that
would certainly include anti-money laundering efforts. And so, ex-
actly how that is going to take place, what the command structure
is going to be with respect to Treasury anti-money laundering ef-
forts is, at least for me, unknown.
But I do believe that we need to do, and can do, a better job of
coordinating and targeting our efforts. And I certainly welcome the
opportunity to work closely with Governor Ridge to that end.
Senator REED. That just raises the obvious point that this is a
multifacet responsibility. The FBI, the Secret Service, the Treasury
Department, and I could think of, and you could both think of prob-
ably 20 other institutions and agencies. And the task I think is not
only to get the framework right, but to make sure that we have
some point of thorough integration. I would hope, as you go for-
ward, you would think about that and let us know what we have
to do to provide you that type of organizational integration.
Let me just touch on another topic, and Senator Schumer alluded
to it, the notion not just simply of money laundering, but of exces-
sive bank secrecy in some parts of the world that inhibit investiga-
tions. I just wonder, are you thinking about ways in which, through
due legal process, we can get access to financial information in
other countries? I guess by way of comparison, to what extent do
we open up our institutions to that type of legal process?
Mr. GURULE . Well, with respect to getting access to information,
account information in particular, in foreign banks, we are pres-
ently working closely, diligently, with our foreign counterparts, the
G7 financial ministers and our other allies, with respect to the 27
entities that were named by President Bush on Monday. And every
indication is that that cooperation has been robust and quite posi-
tive. So, I am certainly encouraged. We just need to continue and
building on that momentum.
In addition, FATF, the Financial Action Task Force, is another
vehicle that we have used at the Treasury Department to enhance
cooperation to ensure that foreign countries have in place a strong
anti-money laundering regime, to ensure that countries that have
bank secrecy laws repeal those laws, so that there can be greater
transparency, and to ensure that the countries have money laun-
dering laws on the books that prohibit money laundering.
There are still some countries today that do not have such do-
mestic legislation. And FATF has proven to be a very effective mul-
tilateral agency, organization, and effort to ensure that those steps
are being taken.
32
Mr. CHERTOFF. I would like to add that one additional approach

we want to take, which is embodied in this legislative proposal is
to make foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with
U.S. banks, designate someone who will respond to subpoenas and
furnish information. So that the price of entry into the inter-
national banking system, if you want to deal with the United
States, is a willingness to furnish information when we need it.
Senator REED. Thank you very much.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Shelby.
Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Chertoff, I first want to congratulate you in this open forum
here for President Bush and Secretary Ashcrofts selecting you to
head the criminal division.
Mr. CHERTOFF. Thank you.
Senator SHELBY. You bring a lot of experience. You are no
stranger to the Banking Committee. We enjoyed when you were
Special Counsel here and enjoyed working with you.
I have read your testimony which has been made part of the
record and I just want to quote from that. You say, In this envi-
ronment, law enforcement is challenged, and the criminals often
hold the advantage. Criminals are able to adapt to changing cir-
cumstances quickly. Of course, you are including terrorists as
criminals. And they are big ones. They pay no heed to the require-
ments of laws and regulations and recognize no sovereigns orders.
Further, these criminal groups have learned to be adaptable and
innovative, and as we succeed in a new enforcement effort or im-
plement a new regulatory regime, they quickly alter their methods
and modes of operations to adopt to the new circumstances. Will
this change if we adopt substantially the proposals that are before
us? And second, will these proposals protect the due process rights
of our citizens?
Mr. CHERTOFF. I think the answer to both questions is yes. I can-
not predict.
Senator SHELBY. I know that.
Mr. CHERTOFF. And I would be foolish to say that these proposals
are going to solve the problem.
Senator SHELBY. By themselves.
Mr. CHERTOFF. But they can certainly move a considerable direc-
tion in giving us the tools we need to diminish the problem. And
one of the features of this set of attacks we had 2 weeks ago is the
diabolical way in which terrorists used our own technology and our
own advanced society against us. They turned our aircraft into
bombs. They use our financial system, our global system, as a way
of fueling their own criminal activities.
But we have an ability to turn that on them as well. If they need
to use our global economic system, we can police that system and
start to dry up the streams of money that they rely upon. So, I
think we can go a considerable distance with this legislation, and
it is legislation which respects the rule of law and due process.
The Department of Justice package operates within the accept-
able framework of criminal laws that we are all familiar with and
33
that the courts have upheld. We are modernizing and improving,

but we are not overturning.
Senator SHELBY. I believe the Assistant Secretary mentioned
other countries passing laws to make money laundering and other
things like it illegal. But these laws by themselves, Mr. Secretary,
will not mean anything unless you have enforcement, will it?
Mr. GURULE . Absolutely. You are absolutely correct, Senator.
With respect to the FATF and the 40 recommendations that are
used to determine whether or not those countries are being cooper-
ative in our international anti-money laundering efforts, one of
those recommendations focuses not only on whether the country
has laws, but also if they are effectively implementing and enforc-
ing those laws.
That is something that the FATF organization is monitoring and
monitoring on a regular basis. And if the answer is no, we have a
law, but it is not being enforced, then that country would not be
in compliance and could be listed on that basis as a noncooperating
country and territory. On the shame list, if you will, of countries.
Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SARBANES. Senator Bayh.
Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being here.
I would like to ask, again, with regard to the regulations that
would have been put into effect in the 1993 law requiring informal
enterprises like Hawalas, casinos, broker-dealers, to report trans-
actions over $3,000, that was scheduled to go into effect earlier this
summer. It has been delayed until, as I understand it, June 30 of
next year? Why the delay and who is objecting?
Mr. GURULE . Let me speak first to the strategy and why in the
strategy the date was moved back to June 30. But then let me also
kind of bring things up to date with respect to changes that have
been made to move that date up.
With respect to the MSBs, the money expanding the suspicious
activity reports, the money service businesses, this is going to af-
fect approximately 200,000 businesses in this country alone. These
are 200,000 businesses that under this regulation would be re-
quired to submit suspicious activity reports. It is a huge number,
number one.
Second, it is going to affect small corner ma and pa businesses
that perhaps issue money orders. And therefore, the level of edu-
cation and expertise is not that we have seen with respect to the
banking industry.
Therefore, with respect to those two concerns, FinCEN has been
actively involved in an education campaign with these affected
businesses so that they understand what is required under the
SARs when the SARs go into effect because we want to make sure
that they are being responsive, that they are submitting the right
kind of information to the Treasury, information that is going to be
valuable to law enforcement.
At the same time, the thinking was that this additional time
would give FinCEN the time needed to really gear up for receiving
the volume of reports that we think are going to be submitted
under this regulation. That, by the way, when the strategy came
out, was prior to September 11.
34
The world is different. As a result of the events of September 11,

we have decided to move the date back to the original date, which
is the registration date for these money service businesses, being
December 31 of this year. So, we are looking at roughly approxi-
mately 3 months for these companies, these 200,000 businesses
registering.
Senator BAYH. I would encourage you in that area, Mr. Gurule .
Obviously, some are sophisticated enough to know how to comply.
Some, as you say, of the ma and pas may not. Because some may
not, this is a critical enough area, it should not keep us from mov-
ing forward in the areas of those who are.
Mr. GURULE . I agree.
Senator BAYH. What about NGOs, and this is to either one of
you? There have been reports about the charities, charitable activi-
ties helping to fund Al Qaeda. What are we doing to crack down
on thateither Mr. Chertoff or Mr. Gurule in the legislation that
we are contemplating, or in the Administrations approach?
Mr. CHERTOFF. We have in this legislationI should add also, in
the package of anti-terrorism proposals which has been sub-
mittedproposals to take money laundering and make it clearer
and more broadly applicable to those organizations which assist
terrorism or terrorist organizations, as designated by the President.
So clearly again, the money laundering piece is an important
piece, although I should add that we already have laws on the
books that make it illegal to be assisting terrorist organizations.
What we need to do, and what we are doing, is pursuing those or-
ganizations vigorously and aggressively, to use the existing laws
and hopefully any additional laws, in order to shut them down.
Senator BAYH. Thank you. My time is about up. I appreciate
your presence, both of you.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh.
Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up a little bit on the volume that we are
talking about here. The suspicious account reports, you say we
have about 200,000.
Mr. GURULE . Approximately 200,000 businesses will be affected.
Senator ALLARD. Okay, it is 200,000 businesses. But how many
reports are we talking about?
Mr. GURULE . Well, at present, we are receiving approximately
150,000 a year under the current system.
Senator ALLARD. That is the 157,000 that Senator Gramm re-
ferred to in his opening comments.
Mr. GURULE . Right.
Senator ALLARD. Okay. The cash transaction reports.
Senator GRAMM. Seventy-seven million.
Senator ALLARD. That 77 million is the kind of figure I am look-
ing at. Would you agree with that?
Mr. GURULE . The currency transaction reports are approximately
12 million a year. It is a very large number, certainly.
Senator ALLARD. Yes.
Mr. GURULE . And it is that number that I am concerned with
with respect to, a significant percentage not being all that valuable
to law enforcement.
35
Senator ALLARD. What is your solution? Are you suggesting that

maybethe threshold is 10,000. Are you suggesting that maybe we
need to raise that threshold?
Mr. GURULE . The solution that we are proposing and that is set
forth under the strategy is to work with the banking industry to
see if we can achieve greater compliance with exemptions to the fil-
ing of the CTRs. FinCEN, through work that they have done, re-
search that they have done, estimate that approximately 30 per-
cent of the 12 million CTRs that we receive have no value to law
enforcement. So if we could just get compliance, if we could achieve
greater compliance with the statutory exemptions, we could reduce
that number significantly.
Senator ALLARD. And you need to bring me up a little bit on
these exemptions. What kind of exemptions are we talking about?
Mr. GURULE . For example, let us say that we have a K-Mart that
is making bank deposits every day that are in excess of $10,000.
There is no good reason to believe that K-Mart or anyand again,
I do not want to
Chairman SARBANES. It is just a hypothetical.
Mr. GURULE . Hypothetical. Exactly. I just want to qualify that.
Thank you.
[Laughter.]
But any commercial business such as that, that transaction is
suspicious or would be beneficial to law enforcement with respect
to money laundering investigations and therefore, it should not be
reported. My intent is to work closely, again in partnership with
the banking community, to see if we could achieve greater compli-
ance, or at least seek to identify what the obstacles are to compli-
ance with these exemptions.
Senator ALLARD. So, you would do a background check on a busi-
ness or perhaps individuals that frequently have to get involved
with cash transaction reports. You would exempt them. Then those
that are occasional, that come through that you do not have that
information on, would not. Is that basically the way that that
would work?
Mr. GURULE . In fact, the exemptions that I am referring to are
actually statutory exemptions passed by Congress. Those are the
exemptions that are not being fully complied with by the banking
industry. I do not know this for a factbut I suspect that the rea-
son is that the banking systems, the banks have set up a system
for reporting. And perhaps it is just easier to report every trans-
action over $10,000, rather than segregate out certain transactions
that would fall under the exemption. So we need to work together.
Senator ALLARD. But I could see where maybe the information
would not be available to a bank. And so, in order to cover them-
selves, they would just require it as a bank.
Is there ready access to this information from a bank, where they
can get this kind of assurance that this business is legitimate and
that it would fall under the exemption?
Mr. GURULE . I think that, certainly, we need to enhance our ef-
forts to work with the bank to make sure that they have a good
understanding or better understanding of what they need to report.
But with the CTRs, except for the exemptions, it is mandatory.
There is no discretion. With the SARs, that is discretion. If they
36
have reason to believe that the particular transaction is suspicious

and tied to criminal activity, then they have the discretion.
Senator ALLARD. There is no exemption with the CTR. That was
not clear. So all CTRs, cash transaction reports, anything over
$10,000 has to be reported. There is no exemptions on that.
Mr. GURULE . I probably confused the issue. With the CTRs,
there is a mandatory reporting requirement, except for the statu-
tory exemptions.
Senator ALLARD. Okay.
Mr. GURULE . With the SARs, those are ones that the judgment
call has to be made by the particular industry.
Senator ALLARD. Yes, that is the way I perceived it worked.
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. Good. Mr. Gurule , I thought that was a
very rational, common sense response to the questions. My own
view is that we should not change the statutory level because it
just would provide another target for people to play off of. But as
long as you have sufficient discretion or exemption authority to
deal with those instances in which it is serving no reasonable pur-
posebecause then, you could always swing back if you discover
that there is some abuse taking place.
You can take a company which says, well we consistently be-
cause of our business want to transfer $15,000 or $20,000, or what-
ever it is. And I guess, conceivably, you give them an exemption.
But then, all of a sudden, it might start spiking up because there
is some game being played within the company ranks somewhere
or something of that sort. I think it is very important that you
come at it in this rational, common sense way that you outlined in
your answer.
Senator Miller.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR ZELL MILLER
Senator MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time to
my colleague, Senator Corzine, because, quite frankly, I think his
questions might be better than the ones that I have before me,
given his experience.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, I will let you yield your time without
concurring in the premise of the yield.
[Laughter.]
Senator CORZINE. The Chairman is very wise.
[Laughter.]
I have a couple of questions with regard to Swiss banking laws
and the privacy of their accounts.
First, do we feel that we have the full cooperation and access at
the kind of transparency that would break through what really
sounds, in my experience, to be prohibited by Swiss banks, a num-
ber of the things that we are asking for in this legislation and what
would be necessary to actually intervene in this?
Second, I have this concern about unregulated entities. And one
of the most important ones of those are money management firms
that are outside of both the SEC and most countries regulatory
structures, often labelled generically. I am not trying to undermine
their credibility, but hedge funds in general are without any kind
37
of supervision, particularly with respect to deposit activity. And

whether you have looked at that and whether there are elements
of that that make sense.
Then there has been much discussion about people profiteering
off of the anticipated September 11 events. Is there anything that
you would want to comment on? But more importantly, have we
put in place checks into our trading and transaction systems that
in a way would provide foresight with regard to the kinds of ac-
tions that might take place?
This happens to be one of those standard practices of the SEC
to be reviewing these audit trails, if you could track those to cer-
tain individuals ahead of time that might have looked likeI guess
there might be some element of profiling there. But I do think that
it is an element that needs to be talked about.
So those are generally my questions.
Mr. CHERTOFF. Let me try to address some of the questions, Sen-
ator Corzine. And my colleague will probably have something to
say about others.
First, I know because we are from the same State, and I know
where your hometown is, that you must have felt personally what
happened 2 weeks ago. And I know that is something which all of
us, when we discuss proposals, we are oftentimes reminded of the
very personal dimension to this. Let me deal first with the issue
of the question about whether people profited by knowing in ad-
vance about these acts.
I do not think it is a secret that the press has reported that there
were allegations or indications, not necessarily here, but overseas,
that people may have shorted or engaged in other transactions in
stock at a time which is suggestive of advanced knowledge. Of
course, we have laws against insider trading. Still more important,
anybody who had advanced knowledge of a terrorist act would be
a prime suspect for being a part of a terrorist conspiracy. That is
an issue which we are looking at very aggressively. It involves not
only U.S. entities or U.S. stocks, but it involves foreign stocks.
As you know, the SEC does track unusual trading. This is an
area where we have to coordinate with overseas regulatory entities
in making sure that both in general and specifically as it relates
to these issues, we are in a position to identify groups that may
have traded in advance. If we can do that, then to pursue them.
Senator CORZINE. The same leverage that you would use in fi-
nancial transactions with normal commercial banks and/or deposi-
tory institutions needs to be used, I suspect.
Mr. CHERTOFF. Exactly.
Senator CORZINE. I hope the legislation takes that into account.
Mr. CHERTOFF. Our legislation, I think, deals broadly with finan-
cial institutions.
But having said that and, again, saying we have no pride of au-
thorship, if there is a way to better define the subject area or make
it clearer, so that we are absolutely confident that we are address-
ing even unregulated money managers, I think it is important that
we do that.
It is my understanding, for example, that in certain parts of the
world, including parts of the Middle East, because of various objec-
tions to the earning of money through interest, money managers
38
often use various kinds of derivatives as a way of profiting from ac-

tivity. And those are normally perfectly legal. But, of course, if one
is trying to profit off of a terrorist act, we need to be able to look
at transactions in various kinds of derivatives and forward con-
tracts, and we want to make sure that we are doing that.
So, I think the legislation covers the waterfront. But if there is
any doubt about that, we would be more than happy to work with
you and the Committee to make sure that we are plugging in the
loopholes.
Senator CORZINE. About the Swiss banking issues.
Mr. GURULE . With respect to Switzerland, I would say this. It is
certainly my understanding that they have been cooperating. I say
this from the perspective again of FATF and looking to the 40 rec-
ommendations, the guidelines by which the international commu-
nity measures a countrys cooperation on money laundering. They
are certainly in compliance with those recommendations. Beyond
that, I would not want to comment.
Mr. CHERTOFF. I would only add that I think in general, over re-
cent years, Switzerland has become one of our most significant
partners in pursuing asset forfeiture and sharing for criminal ac-
tivities. I think there are other countries where we do need to do
a lot of work, though.
Chairman SARBANES. Senator Schumer.
Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize to the witnesses. I was watching you on the closed
circuit TV. These days, being a Senator from New York, it is over-
whelming. So I had to try to do two things at once. Let me just
follow up where I left off before.
When we talk about going after terrorists and the nations that
harbor them, we cannot just be talking about going after those
states that give physical shelter to bin Laden. We are also talking
about those who assist in sheltering his assets. Some do it know-
ingly. Many do it unwittingly. The effect is the same. So I am curi-
ous about the Administrations view about going after jurisdictions
that have enabled bin Laden and other terrorists to finance their
campaigns of terror. Would the Administration consider sanctions
against countries that do not cooperate with international law en-
forcement? In other words, countries who say, when you go and our
FBI, or whomever, goes to a bank and says, we want to know the
money that came in and the money that came out here. And the
country says, you cannot do that, which some countries allow us to
now and some do not, depending on the country. Would we consider
sanctions against countries that do not cooperate?
The bills that Senators Levin, Kerry, Grassley, and myself have
mainly go after the banking institutions. But then your worry is,
they set up another one and it starts all over again. I am beginning
to feel that going after some of these countries is the most impor-
tant. Is the Administration planning to lead an international effort
to cut off jurisdictions that do not cooperate with law enforcement?
I have had conversations with some large New York banks that
do a lot of the correspondent banking. And they have admitted
openly that cutting off noncompetitive jurisdictions will not affect
their major banking institutions, because these tend to be smaller
39
countries, et cetera. Would you gentlemen want to comment on

that?
Mr. GURULE . Let me quote a statement that President Bush
made last Thursday. He stated, If you do business with terrorists,
if you support or sponsor them, you will not do business with the
United States. He made that statement.
Senator SCHUMER. Was that aimed at countries? Was that aimed
at banking institutions? It is a very powerful statement. I am glad
he made it.
Mr. GURULE . I think that it was intended to have breadth, not
be restricted.
With respect to the implementation of that statement, putting
some teeth behind it, the Administrations international efforts in-
clude a focus on United Nations Security Resolution 1333, that pro-
hibits terrorists financing, fund-raising, and such. We are moving
on that front with respect to getting that resolution passed within
the United States and then using that as an international cudgel,
if you will, against countries that permit this type of fund-raising
and financing activity.
In addition, we are moving on another front with respect to the
international convention against the suppression of international
terrorist financing. We are supporting that and moving forward
with respect to that. That is an international convention that has
been signed, but has not yet been ratified.
Senator SCHUMER. What does it do? It seems to me that the ter-
rorists are not going to make their monies available they are going
to try to be very much sub rosa on this.
Mr. GURULE . I think what it does, though, is it requires coopera-
tion. It requires that foreign states have legislation that punishes
and criminalizes fund-raising of this kind. It requires the enforce-
ment of that legislation. It requires stiff penalties. And it gives us
an international forum to advance this.
Senator SCHUMER. I would like to ask some specific questions,
with the indulgence of the Chair.
Would we take the lead in cutting off any financial institution in
these countries that doesnt go along with what we need in terms
of openness and allowing our law enforcement to find where trans-
actions go?
Mr. GURULE . I think with respect to our U.S. banking system,
the answer is absolutely yes.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Second question. Good. That is good.
Now what happens ifthe question, I do not know if you were
in the audience, that I posed to Senators Levin and Kerry, who
have just done great work on this.
We know Country X is a bad-apple country and their whole
banking system is founded on opacityyou know, come bank here.
Nobody will find out. We cut them off. Then they go to an ally of
ours and start doing business there. And once they are in a large
ally country with a sophisticated banking system, the money can
flow to the United States through that third country, through that
intermediate country.
What would you consider we do in those situations to the inter-
mediate country if they do not go along? And as you know, history
has shown that after a year or two, sometimes months, these coun-
40
tries revert back to saying, hey, we can make some money here. We
can have a relationship. Maybe we will get contracts and things
like this. What are we going to do to those intermediate countries?
Mr. GURULE . Well, with respect to the Executive Order that went
into effect on Monday, if we had evidence that this third-party
country, if you will, was maintaining, or its banks were maintain-
ing assets that are traceable to international terrorist organiza-
tions, then those assets could be blocked. And the bank that is
maintaining those accounts could be blocked from doing business
with the U.S. banks, would be denied access to the U.S. banks.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay. So let us say that the Sudan bank, this
little bank in Senator Levins example, does business with a large
French bank. Would we consider saying to that French bank, you
cannot do business in the United States if they do not have the
same rules as we do about that Sudanese bank?
Mr. GURULE . I think we would seek the cooperation of our allies
to assist us with respect to cutting off those funds.
Senator SCHUMER. Understood. But the allies say, we agree with
you on these three points, but not on these three, and we are going
to do the first three, but not the second three. And our law enforce-
ment, Mr. Chertoff here over in the Justice Department tells you
that we need those second three points. What would we do?
Mr. GURULE . It is very difficult for me to speculate through all
of these different hypotheticals and scenarios.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay. My only point is, if we really want to
get serious about the finances, as the President has made clear on
so many others, we are going to have to get pretty tough. And that
may take some belt-tightening in ways for all of us.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you, Senator Schumer.
There is a vote on. I think we have concluded with this panel.
We will take a brief recess in order to go and vote. And then we
will return and we will have Ambassador Eizenstat at the table as
our witness.
Mr. Gurule , Mr. Chertoff, thank you very much for your testi-
mony, and even more, for the proffer of working closely now with
the Committee as we shape this legislation. Obviously, we are on
a very fast track to do that. I think we can appropriately deal with
some of the questions that were raised here today about being care-
ful and prudent as we deal with this matter.
But on the other hand, a lot of very good work has been done.
The Department of Justice has done work in terms of what they
have come forward with. Treasury has done work in terms of where
they are. Senators Levin and Kerry, I think, have done excellent
pieces of work in terms of their legislation. And as Senator Grass-
ley pointed out, their legislation is not hastily put together or ill-
considered. It evolved over a very sustained period of time. The
Kerry bill actually was reported out by the House Committee 33 to
1. The Levin bill reflects a very extended work program by his Per-
manent Subcommittee on Investigations.
I think we have really a lot of material that has been brought
to a very high level in terms of being close to being finalized. And
I think it is now a question of working together to put that all to-
gether in a sensible framework and moving it ahead and giving our
41
law enforcement people the tools that they really need in order to
come to grips with this problem. Now it is quite true, then it is car-
rying it out, it is implementing it, and that is your burden.
But on the other hand, your chances of implementing are better
if you are working within a framework that is comprehensive, ra-
tional, interrelated, and that should be our objective in terms of
what we provide to you.
That does not preclude trying to weed out some things that are
now being done that are not helpful and do not serve a purpose.
But the fact that you may need to do that is no argument for not
extending out to cover the sort of activities that Senator Corzine
was underscoring, the need to be brought in under the umbrella.
We thank you very much for your testimony and we look forward
to working very closely with you.
The Committee will take a brief recess and then we will return
and we will hear from Ambassador Eizenstat.
[Recess.]
Chairman SARBANES. The hearing will resume.
It is our intention now to hear from Ambassador Eizenstat. Then
following that, we will go to the panel that was scheduled. And so,
we intend to go straight through as far as we have to into the
lunch period in order to try to conclude. I know some of our wit-
nesses need to travel and we want to try to accommodate that also.
I want to thank Stu Eizenstat for coming today and being willing
to testify. He has had a very distinguished record in public service,
now a partner at Covington & Burling. But he was the Deputy Sec-
retary of the Treasury in the previous Administration, was in fact
the lead official on the anti-money laundering initiatives. He has
previously served as Under Secretary of Commerce, Under Sec-
retary of State, Ambassador to the European Union.
I simply want to express my very deep appreciation to him for
his willingness to take the time and to make the commitment in
order to come and be with us today and let us have the benefit of
his thinking and his knowledge on this very important issue.
Stu, thank you again for coming.
STATEMENT OF STUART E. EIZENSTAT
FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY
Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me and
thank you for your leadership on this issue and for holding the
hearing and for your leadership on S. 398.
Stopping money laundering and the syndicates it finances is crit-
ical to the fight against narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and
corruption, and now we know that it is also critical to the personal
safety of our citizens.
Money laundering is the financial side of crime and money
launderers are the criminals investment bankers. As you yourself
noted today, Mr. Chairman, the IMF has estimated that the
amount of money laundered annually is between $600 billion and
$1.5 trillion, or 2 to 5 percent of the worlds annual gross domestic
product. And it is also estimated that about a third of that amount,
up to perhaps half a trillion dollars annually, passes through U.S.
financial institutions at least once on its clandestine journey.
42
Money laundering also affects the vitality of our goods as the

Black Market Peso Exchange Program indicates, and undermines
the credibility and safety of our whole global financial system upon
which our prosperity depends.
Now, we are brought face to face with another aspect of the
criminal financial system and its use by the merchants of terror.
Terrorists must have money to pay for weapons, travel, training
and even benefits for the family members of suicide bombers. Ter-
rorists raise funds in many ways, through commissions of crime,
through payment from state sponsors, and through fund-raising of
what are said to be humanitarian organizations. More on that in
a second.
But however raised, the funds must be transmitted across bor-
ders, marshaled, and spentwith the application of new layers of
camouflage at each step. The fight to curtail money laundering has
been a product of bipartisan consensus. President Reagan signed a
law which for the first time outlawed money laundering as such.
In 1989, President Bush led the way by creating the Financial Ac-
tion Task Force and then FinCEN a year later. President Clinton
launched a coordinated 5 year effort reflected in two national
money laundering strategies. I would like to talk about just for a
second some of our efforts.
The President issued two Executive Orders targeting terrorist
groups in 1995 and 1998. The Executive Order on August 22, 1998,
added bin Laden and Al Qaeda to those other terrorist organiza-
tions, permitting the freezing of their assets if they could be found.
Rick Newcombe, the longtime and excellent leader of OFAC in
Treasury, who reported to me on two occasions, along with Will
Wechsler, who we brought over from the NSC to head money laun-
dering, in July 1999 and in January 2000, led delegations with the
National Security Council to four gulf statesSaudi Arabia, Ku-
wait, Bahrain and UAE.
The purpose was, Mr. Chairman, to look for charitable organiza-
tions and banks who might be involved in money laundering. We
felt that as a result of those two trips, that in particular, Kuwait
and Bahrain were helpful in trying to identify those wayward orga-
nizations. In addition, in July 1999, in implementing the 1998 Ex-
ecutive Order, $250 million in Taliban money was found in the
United States. There was suspicion that Al Qaeda and bin Laden
were using charitable organizations, and those were being inves-
tigated during our Administration.
I am very pleased that President Bush has now added three pan-
Islamic funding organizations which may have been used for ter-
rorists. We were certainly on the same track. So, indeed, this is a
bipartisan issue.
I have described the major components of our approach in my
written statement and I hope those will continue to be employed
by this Administration.
For example, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) published
a broad listing for the first time of those countries that do not meet
international financial standards, what we call the name and
shame list. We also helped build the Egmont group of financial in-
telligence units. And at home, we issued guidance in the last weeks
of our Administration to financial institutions, alerting them to
43
special scrutiny in dealing with foreign officials, their relatives and

close friends, as well as preparing the legislation which you have
talked about today. And I want to applaud Senator Kerry, Senator
Grassley, and yourself for this important step in introducing legis-
lation that passed 33 to 1, as you pointed out, in the House Com-
mittee under Chairman Leach last year.
The fact is we have too few tools to protect the financial system
from international money laundering. At one end of the spectrum,
Mr. Chairman, Senator Corzine, the Secretary can issue Treasury
advisories, as we did in the summer of 2000, to encourage U.S. fi-
nancial institutions to pay special attention to targeted trans-
actions involving certain jurisdictions.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the IEEPA powers
that the President invoked and that President Clinton had done
again in 1995 and 1998. Following a Presidential finding of na-
tional security emergency, you can have a full scale set of sanctions
and blocking orders.
The problem is, although President Bushs order was absolutely
appropriate, there is nothing in between the advisories, on the one
hand, and IEEPA on the other. And there are many situations
when advisories are not enough and when IEEPA may be inappro-
priate, situations in which we might not want to block all trans-
actions, or in which our concern centers on underregulated foreign
financial institutions or holes in foreign counter-money laundering
efforts. A more flexible tool is needed. We do not have one available
now. That is what your legislation and Senator Kerrys would do.
The key to the operation of S. 398 is that a determination by the
Secretary of Treasury, after consultation with other senior Govern-
ment officials, that a specific foreign jurisdiction, financial institu-
tion operating outside the United States or class of international
transactions, is a primary money laundering concern.
And may I say, although Senator Gramm is not here, regarding
his concern about judicial review, it is important to recognize that
any action taken under S. 398, that finding would be a determina-
tion that would be fully reviewable under the Administrative Pro-
cedures Act by a court. This is not, after all, a forfeiture process.
But even the determination could be challenged under the Admin-
istrative Procedures Act.
So the trigger authorizing the Secretary to act imposes several
types of special reporting, recordkeeping, and customer identifica-
tion requirements linked to the object of primary concern or, in ex-
treme cases, to impose conditions upon or prohibit the opening of
certain correspondent accounts.
The bill is carefully tailored to actions against real abuse. It is
graduated, targeted, and discretionary. Graduated, so the Secretary
can act in a manner proportional to the threat; targeted, so he can
focus on his or her response, on particular facts and circumstances;
and discretionary, so that Treasury can integrate any possible ac-
tion in the bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts, to persuade
offending jurisdictions to change their practices, so invocation of
the authority would be unnecessary. I also want to deal with the
privacy issue.
It is incorrect that this would compromise in any significant way
the privacy of American citizens. The focus of the legislation is not
44
on American citizens. It is on foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial

institutions, or classes of transactions with or involving jurisdic-
tions outside the United States.
They involve the abuse of U.S. banks facing especially identified
primary money laundering concern. The legislation is drawn so as
not to add unnecessary burdens to financial institutions.
We also hoped last year to see the passage of legislation which
the Justice Department had long sought, to make crimes against
foreign governments, like misappropriation of public funds, fraud
and official bribery, arms trafficking and certain crimes of violence,
specified unlawful activities for purposes of money laundering. Un-
less this change is made, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Corzine, a ra-
pacious foreign dictator, a corrupt foreign dictator can bring his
funds to the United States and hide them without fear of detection
or prosecution in many cases. And I think it is important to recog-
nize that there really is a confluence of official foreign corruption
and money laundering. The two go hand in hand and we have to
deal with both.
I am pleased that S. 1371, introduced by Senator Levin and co-
sponsored by yourself, Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, Senators
Kyl, Nelson, and DeWine, include the necessary change and impor-
tant related changes to our forfeiture laws.
I hope that the program outlined in the National Money Laun-
dering Strategy of 2001, this Administrations first, does not short-
change appropriate legislative and regulatory efforts to shore up
weaknesses in our financial mechanism that money launderers can
exploit.
We need the kind of enforcement that is at the center of the Ad-
ministrations strategy. But we also need the kind of structural
changes that your legislation would provide. The acid test for me
is whether the Administration will support passage of S. 398.
Again, as you have emphasized and as I mentioned, it had strong
bipartisan support in the House Banking Committee last year.
Permit me to add one additional word about money laundering
and terrorism. My written statement contains a number of rec-
ommendations on steps to fight terrorism that the Administration
can take to follow up Mondays forceful action by the President.
This includes greater efforts to penetrate underground banking
practices, the Hawala system, greater efforts in particular in the
Persian Gulf, to go after phony charitable organizations that serve
as conduits for terrorism and for Osama bin Ladens organization,
and guidance to U.S. financial institutions in identifying bank ac-
counts, beneficial ownership accounts, so that they have a better
idea of the beneficial owners with whom they are dealing.
We cannot overstate our chances of immediate success because
our adversaries are good at hiding funds, they use nontraditional
underground systems that are outside sophisticated financial chan-
nels, and they often operate on meager budgets. However the fact
that clues are not easy to find and have to be pieced together must
not deter us.
To sum up, the rapid growth of international commerce along
with advances in technology are making it easier for criminals and
foreign jurisdictions to launder money through foreign institutions
in the United States and, hence, to finance the expansion of the
45
global criminal economy and the growth of organized criminal

groups and international terrorists as substate threats to our secu-
rity. That is why it is essential for this Committee to act to shore
up our national defense against money laundering.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador
Eizenstat. And I also want to express our appreciation for this very
well-developed and comprehensive statement. And obviously, the
entire statement will be included in the record.
At the outset of this hearing, of course, we heard from Senator
Kerry, who introduced S. 398, and Senator Levin, who introduced
S. 1371. And I thought that we had a very appropriate comment by
Senator Grassley, who was at the witness table with them, that
both of these pieces of legislation represented a well-considered,
carefully thought-through approach that had been developed over
a rather sustained period of time. Neither represents a sort of
hasty, quickly put together legislative proposal.
As you note, S. 398 actually came out of the House Committee
with a 33 to 1 vote. Regrettably, it did not move beyond that. My
question to you I guess is, do you see these bills as being compat-
ible in a way that they can be combined along with other sugges-
tions? We have both the Treasury and the Department of Justice
who have some proposals of their own as well, and of course, our
effort here will be to bring these together, meld them. Do you see
these two bills as compatible and therefore, subject to combination?
Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, sir, I believe they can be combined. The core
provisions of the two bills deal with the same set of issues. Namely,
the misuse of correspondent and payable through accounts, the
lack of financial transparency involving non-U.S. customers of U.S.
financial institutions and the need for enhanced due diligence in
certain high-risk accounts.
The primary difference between the two bills, Mr. Chairman, is
that S. 398 keys action to a specific finding by the Secretary of
money laundering concern, where S. 1371 takes a broader ap-
proach mandating general rules on the same subject.
For example, S. 1371 requires U.S. banks to identify each foreign
person having a direct or beneficial ownership interest in a U.S. ac-
count, while, again, S. 398 would key special rules to a particular
finding of money laundering concern. But I think that they can be
melded together. Many of the provisions of both are very positive.
For example, S. 1371s provision about private banking and en-
hanced due diligence for private banking and correspondent ac-
count recordkeeping could easily be incorporated into the S. 398
structure. In addition, S. 1371 makes a useful expansion of the
number of predicate crimes that form the basis of money laun-
dering expenses, such as, as I mentioned, acts against foreign gov-
ernments like official foreign corruption.
There are important changes in S. 1371 that could be melded into
S. 398, such as the changes in the forfeiture laws, long-arm juris-
diction against foreign money launderers, and criminally pros-
ecuting those who knowingly make false statements regarding the
identity of their customers. So, I think that, while there obviously
are differences, these could be melded and combined into an even
more powerful bill.
46
Chairman SARBANES. Good. I appreciate that. I know you are

now in the private sector, and your time and commitment are not
unlimited. But I hope we can draw on you for your advice and
counsel as we try to deal with this problem.
Mr. EIZENSTAT. I would be glad to work with you and Steve and
others on that.
Chairman SARBANES. I appreciate that very much.
We have discussed, and I see Senator Corzine had to depart be-
cause this is a matter that he is focused on. The Washington Post,
in an editorial, said, The existing requirement that banks report
suspicious activity to regulators should be extended to other types
of financial institutions, such as stock brokers, insurers, and even
casinos. What is your reaction to that recommendation?
Mr. EIZENSTAT. Well, I agree with that. In fact, we did extend
this to casinos and on the broker-dealers, as was mentioned earlier,
there is a decision to do that.
The regulations did not come out. I wish they had come out a lit-
tle earlier. There were a variety of reasons for that, including the
fact that we had to try to implement the GrammLeachBliley Act
that shifted certain responsibilities from Treasury to the SEC, and
there were a lot of complications in doing that. But I would hope
that the Administration by the end of the year would be able to
have the regulations to permit the extension of this so that we
have a level playing field for our banks and we have casinos and
broker-dealers covered.
Chairman SARBANES. I would like to draw you out a little bit on
the privacy issue because I was asked by a member of the press
on the way back to this hearing about the privacy question.
My response was that, actually, we are seeking to gain financial
information about foreigners that Americans are already exposed to
under our current framework. This does not represent any further
intrusion into the financial privacy as it now exists for American
citizens. It is actually, to the extent that it does anything, it gets
at foreigners who go free from some of these transparency report-
ing requirements. Would you agree with that statement?
Mr. EIZENSTAT. I agree fully, and may I add just a few other
things on the privacy issue because it is one of the things as we
were drafting the legislation that did pass the House Banking
Committee last year so overwhelmingly. We spent an enormous
amount of time trying to balance the privacy issues against effec-
tive law enforcement.
First of all, no one has a privacy right to commit crime. And the
Supreme Court has made it clear a number of times, the crucial
opinion being authored by Justice, now Chief Justice, Rehnquist,
that the whole Bank Secrecy Act is itself completely constitutional.
And that is in a way an effort to try and get at the names of people
who may be doing untoward things.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has made clear that bank records
are not within a constitutional zone of privacy. But that is not the
full answer. For one thing, the very specificity of the statute that
you have drawn is a protection against privacy.
Second, any required records are subject to the general privacy
protections imposed by law, including GrammLeachBliley, and
subject to recognized exceptions for law enforcement.
47
And third, the very legislation expands the nondisclosure rules of

suspicious activity reports to make it plain that government offi-
cials, as well as bankers, can violate the law by improperly dis-
closing information from those reports. So all of these provide
ample protection against privacy invasions.
Chairman SARBANES. Obviously, this has to be an international
effort. I wonder if you could comment a bit about the international
arrangements that currently exist or could be strengthened to deal
with this. And in particular, there seems to be an assumption on
the part of some that our efforts to deal with money laundering ex-
ceed or go beyond that being done by other countries.
But I am told that, actually, there are a number of countries who
have a more rigorous statutory framework for dealing with money
laundering than the United States, and that in some of these inter-
national fora in which we are working at this problem, we are not
necessarily the leaders in trying to address this matter.
Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, that is a very important point.
We would like to think of ourselves as the worlds only superpower
and the leader in a whole range of things.
The fact is that in the attack on money laundering, we are not
as advanced as a number of members of an organization set up
under the Bush Administration, called the Financial Action Task
Force. This now has some 29 members and many of those have
tougher rules on money laundering than do we.
The important advance that we made is that for the first time,
and this was under the leadership of people like Will Wechsler and
Jody Meyers and others in Treasury, we identified 15 countries
that did not meet basic international money laundering standards.
They did not outlaw money laundering. They had no financial intel-
ligence units. They did not share any information.
I am frankly proud of the fact that we did not pull any punches.
We included Israel. We included Panama. We included Russia on
that list, as well as places like Nairu. So this was just not an easy
list to compile. We called it like we saw it. And the important thing
about that list is that now about half of those countries have acted
rapidly to pass new legislation to establish functioning financial in-
telligence units like the one that Jim Sloane so ably leads here, the
FinCEN.
A number of those countries have gotten off the list, like Panama
and a number of others. I hope Israel will get off shortly. And this
Administration, to its credit, in June, added another six countries
and in September, another two, including Ukraine.
This we call the Name and Shame List. It really focused a spot-
light on those countries and has gotten them to act. But if we want
to continue to be a leader in the Financial Action Task Force, we
have to demonstrate that we are at the forefront of being tough on
money laundering and that is why, again, S. 398 and S. 1371 are
so important.
Without those, a lot of our leadership is rhetorical, frankly, and
not backed up by the kind of tough actions that I think are nec-
essary. So the process has worked.
And I heard an earlier question about Switzerland. The fact is
that the Swiss have really turned over a new leaf. I negotiated
with them on the Holocaust issues for several years and it was
48
very tough and very difficult. They have recognized that if they are
going to be leaders in the international financial community, they
have to have transparency.
They are members of FATF. They have tough rules. They are
complying. They are sharing information. So, we cannot point the
finger at a lot of countriesthey can almost point the finger at us.
Chairman SARBANES. Some have argued, or at least put forward,
the proposition that, in light of the Presidents Executive Order of
September 24, that that sort of takes care of the situation and we
do not need any further legislation. Could you address that?
Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, sir. If anything, the Presidents actions,
which again are highly welcomed and should be applauded, if any-
thing, underscore the need for the legislation, the reason being that
it is true the President can act in the dramatic fashion that he did
under IEEPA. But we used to call that the atomic bomb. You take
that when you are going after Osama bin Laden.
The only other authority that we have under the Treasury De-
partment or anywhere else in Government are these very mild
advisories. There is nothing in between. And there will be many in-
stances in dealing with money launderingforeign jurisdictions,
types of transactions, and foreign countrieswhen using the, in a
sense, nuclear weapon of IEEPA, as appropriate as it was for Presi-
dent Bush to use here, would be inappropriate to use. So we want
to give the Treasury the full range of powers in between the
advisories, on the one hand, and IEEPA on the other.
So, again, to me, if anything, the use of IEEPA in this cir-
cumstance, as dire and unique as it was, dramatizes and under-
scores the need for more flexible ranges of powers to deal with
other perhaps less dramatic, but still terribly important, money
laundering problems.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, thank you very much. This has been
extremely helpful testimony and we obviously appreciate the initia-
tives which you undertook when you were in the Government to
address this issue.
We very much appreciate your willingness to be available for us
to call on you for counsel in the days ahead, as I think you heard
in our earlier discussions, we proceed to shape the legislation.
Mr. EIZENSTAT. I have gotten more and more used to pro bono
work, Mr. Chairman, so why not here.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much, Stu.
If the next panel would come forward.
[Pause.]
Our concluding panel consists of William Wechsler, who served
as a Special Advisor to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of
the Treasury, where he led the Departments day-to-day programs
and policy initiatives to combat money laundering between 1999
and 2001. Prior to that, he had served as the National Security
Council staff member, where he chaired the interagency working
group seeking to disrupt Osama bin Ladens financial network.
Jonathan Winer is a leading authority on domestic and inter-
national money laundering initiatives, a former U.S. Deputy Assist-
ant Secretary of the Treasury for Transnational Law Enforcement,
one of the architects of U.S. international policy and enforcement.
49
He also led the Senates investigation of BCCI in the late 1980s

and early 1990s.
And Alvin James, who has had extensive experience in inves-
tigating money laundering schemes, particularly the Columbian
Black Market Peso Exchange. Mr. James has served as the Senior
Money Laundering Policy Advisor to the Financial Crimes Enforce-
ment Network and is a Special Agent in the IRS Criminal Inves-
tigation Division, serving as an undercover agent specializing in
international money laundering efforts.
Gentlemen, we are very pleased you all are here. I regret, in a
sense, the lateness of the hour, but we have had a very full morn-
ing, I think, as you have observed. And we would be happy to take
your testimony.
We will include the full statements in the record, if you care to
compress them or abridge them.
Mr. Wechsler, we will just move right across the panel. So, Mr.
Wechsler?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. WECHSLER

FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER
Mr. WECHSLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, since you
have my full testimony.
What I do want to take is just a little bit of time to describe the
nature of the Al Qaeda financial network, what has been done,
what can we do against it specifically, and then a couple of state-
ments on the general issue of money laundering, not to repeat all
the fine and excellent statements that Former Deputy Secretary
Eizenstat just gave.
Unlike most terrorist leaders, Osama bin Laden did not become
famous for leading a terrorist cell or having military victories. This
is key to understanding the problem. He became famous for build-
ing a financial architecture that supported the Mujadin fighting in
Afghanistan against the Russians. It is this financial architecture
that continued with him when he turned to terrorism, and it is this
financial architecture that is at the heart of how Al Qaeda today
gets its finances.
The other key thing to understand is that the general impression
that is out there in the media that this is a product of one rich per-
son sort of writing checks out of his own personal account is false.
If that were the problem, it would be much, much easier to solve.
What it is, as has been alluded to earlier today, is a complicated
system of charitable donations, of individual donors, of legitimate
businesses, of criminal enterprises, of banks, of cash smugglers,
and so forth, all of which eventually give money to do terrible acts,
as we saw on September 11. Most important for the United States
is what then you do about this problem.
The key thing that was done happened in 1998. And in that
time, the strategy changed from a law enforcementcentric strategy
to a more strategic strategy that was designed to take down and
disrupt the financial network and the key notes. As Former Deputy
Secretary Eizenstat just said, President Clinton at the time in-
voked IEEPA law, as President Bush did on Monday.
50
It is very nice if sometimes funds are actually found in the

United States and they are blocked, as several hundred million
were blocked in the United States that belonged to the Taliban.
But there is a common misperception out there that is the goal of
all these activities.
It is not the goal of the activities. It is nice when it happens. The
goal of the activities is to use the leverage that you have, use the
Sword of Damocles that the United States holds hanging over the
heads of foreign persons, foreign companies, foreign financial insti-
tutions, the threat of being cut off from the U.S. economy and the
U.S. financial system, to try to get them quietly sometimes, behind
the scenes often, try to get them to give you information and to
take certain actions that previously they would not be willing to do.
This was a strategy that we had after 1998. This is a strategy
that President Bush is continuing as of Monday. It is a strategy
that can work. We had some very good successes. We stopped, for
instance, the Afghan National Airline, Aeriana Airlines, which was
a key mechanism that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network
used to move funds, material, and personnel back and forth in Af-
ghanistan. We shut it down around the world, not just in the
United States, but also other airports did not want to risk the no-
tion that they would be cut off from U.S. air travel. So, they de-
cided, quite logically, to cut themselves off from Aeriana. That is
the power of this.
The problem is that we were not always successful. Sometimes
there is lack of political will in other countries that we go to. Some-
times when we go to the other countries, they cannot even get the
information that we want them to get because they lack the appro-
priate regulatory regime.
That, amongst other reasons, is why it is so important to quickly
address, as I know you are, Mr. Chairman, the legislation that
passed through the House Banking Committee last year and is on
your table this year, because it would allow, as Deputy Secretary
Eizenstat said, a number of intermediary steps.
Most importantly, particularly for the war against terrorism, it
would allow you to focus them not just on the country at large, but
also on the particular financial institution, and the level of proof
that you would need to take action.
Under IEEPA, you have to be able to show publicly, with open
source information, not just intelligence, that there is a terrorist
nexus going through this bank.
Under the legislation in front of you, you would be able to take
action if you can show that there is a primary money laundering
concern going on there. This could have to do with the regulatory
environment. This could have to do with a pattern of practices.
This is easier to do without the use of intelligence and therefore,
would give us much more leverage.
Thank you very much.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much.
Mr. Winer.
51
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WINER
FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. WINER. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, before you is a chart which displays what is prob-
ably a small portion of Osama bin Ladens financial network. Every
one of the more than 100 boxes on this chart reflects a publicly re-
ported alleged financial link of bin Laden and related terrorists or-
ganizations involving more than 20 countries, in the Americas,
Asia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Public information dem-
onstrates terrorist funds moving through Islamic charities, travel
agents, construction businesses, fisheries, import-export businesses,
stock markets, chemical companies, and a significant number of
banks. All of this is public record and is far from complete. There
simply is not room on a single chart, or even four of them, to in-
clude everything connected to bin Laden-related terrorist groups as
has been publicly reported in open source material.
A few of these entities are now defunct, as a result of law en-
forcement and other operations. Others may have only marginal
ties to terrorist finance. These charts illustrate why responding to
this multifaceted network will require sustained, tenacious co-
operation by many, many governments.
The actions announced by the Bush Administration on Monday
represent potentially significant steps. If followed by further action,
and international cooperation, they could begin to have con-
sequences. But that will only be true if every component of the fi-
nancial services sector internationally, not just banks and certainly
not just U.S. banks or foreign banks with offices in the United
States, are all subject to similar rules and regulations. An anti-ter-
rorist finance regime must be globalized, standardized, har-
monized, and it must be multisectoral to have impact. While there
are many steps that should be taken, I wish to focus on seven
areas for action. My written testimony provides more details them.
First, register and regulate Money Services Businesses, including
Hawala institutions, as the Congress directed the Executive
Branch to do since 1993. Our failure to complete this process has
created a substantial vulnerability by which terrorists can anony-
mously obtain cash below the radar of our financial services regu-
latory system. This is the Department of the Treasurys job. It
should be completed without further delay, so that nonbank money
services businesses in the United States are subject to obligations
at least as tough as those already required of banks. To be effec-
tive, these laws must then be vigorously enforced. We should use
Federal law enforcement injunctive powers to shut down and freeze
all Hawala assets for firms that do not register. If the Department
of Justice does not think it has that power, it should urgently ask
the Congress for it, though I believe the power exists already pretty
much in 31 USC 5320.
Second, increase the international pressure on countries that
have yet to put into place financial regulatory enforcement regimes
that facilitate accountability and the tracking of assets. We have
begun doing this already, but we need to push harder and faster.
Financial regulation and enforcement cannot stop at borders, when
52
terrorist finances do not. Financial regulations and enforcement

must be evenly promulgated and evenly enforced on a global basis.
Third, the United States needs to accelerate efforts to ensure
that every nation signs up to the U.N. Terrorist Finance Conven-
tion, that every country criminalizes terrorist finance, that every
country freezes and seizes terrorist funds and the assets of organi-
zations that support terrorism.
Fourth, the United States must do more to build our own ter-
rorist finance database from existing cases. This means not merely
going through and scouring the records associated with every ter-
rorist prosecution, but we need to do that with cases that abut or
adjoin terrorist activity and involve other terrorist activity. The
Bush Administration has announced it has now begun this task.
Adequate resources, substantial resources need to be devoted to it
and devoted to it immediately.
Fifth, the Congress should support Presidential use of economic
war powers to broaden the reach of U.S. sanctions policy in true
national security emergencies, as the President announced he
would do on Monday. Unilateral action, however, is inherently in-
sufficient. We must obtain the support of key partners, including
the G8 and the European Union. If the European Union agrees
to put into place the same sanctions we are putting into place, all
the European accessor states, the wannabes, including countries
like Cyprus, have to put in the same laws, the same protections,
the same rules. That is tremendously important. You push the
OAS, and then you begin to get all of Latin America in, and you
push from there.
Sixth, the United States needs to secure domestic and inter-
national action against entities that have wittingly or unwittingly
provided support to terrorists. These include a number of Islamic
charities, some of which are prominent and otherwise do many
good works. We will need to work with other governments, includ-
ing many in the Middle East, to cleanse charities that have sup-
ported terrorism unwittingly and to protect them from abuses by
terrorists. Other charities, who have systematically supported ter-
rorism, should be closed down, with their assets seized and made
available to assist terrorisms victims. Mr. Chairman, my chart
shows 17 charities that have been publicly listed in one or another
press accounts, trials, whatever, over the last few years. Most of
them are not yet on any list anywhere, other than in the public
record and perhaps that public list needs to be expanded.
Seventh, we need to strengthen international regulatory coopera-
tion in our securities markets and close regulatory gaps, so that no
terrorist who engages in the obscene act of market manipulation in
connection with an attack ever gets away with it. Countries whose
bank secrecy laws, anonymous trusts, and untraceable business
companies are used by terrorists need to understand there will be
consequences if they do not quickly change their laws and practices
to help the world, every country, trace and seize terrorist finances.
In summary, cutting off terrorist finance is like cutting off the
heads of the hydra. Every time we chop off one head, more will
grow back in its place. To survive, we must kill the entire beast,
and that means more than a single bin Laden, or any one part of
his or related terrorist finance networks.
53

Chairman SARBANES. Thank you very much.
Mr. James.
STATEMENT OF ALVIN C. JAMES, JR.
FORMER SPECIAL AGENT
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here
before you today to speak to you on an issue that affects the na-
tional security of our country.
I am currently the practice leader of the Anti-Money Laundering
Solutions group at Ernst & Young. Prior to that, I spent 27 years
in Federal law enforcement where I culminated my career at the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It was at FinCEN that a
DEA colleague, Greg Passic, and I collaborated on developing a
model that explained what is generally recognized as the largest
money laundering system in the Western Hemispherethe Colom-
bia Black Market Peso Exchangecommonly referred to as BMPE.
The BMPE presents two fundamental dangers to our country
it facilitates the Colombian drug trade by purchasing and laun-
dering billions of dollars each year of Colombian wholesale drug
proceeds. In turn, it makes these funds available to anyone, includ-
ing terrorists, seeking a source of discreet, untraceable U.S. dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a written statement for the
record that centers on the Black Market Peso Exchange as a global
money laundering system. I would like to take this opportunity to
address the use of the BMPE and other underground financial sys-
tems by criminals, particularly international terrorists.
We know that, like all criminals, terrorists need secrecy to suc-
ceed. Terrorists do not need a separate and distinct system of laun-
dering or concealing money for terrorist activity. They use systems
that are readily available in their homelands that leave no paper
trail and are discreet, cheap and reliable. By tapping into existing
systems, such as BMPE and Hawala, the terrorist network can con-
ceal their financial activity from law enforcement.
Hawala and BMPE are parallel payment systems that use bro-
kers who buy money as a commodity and then transfer it inter-
nationally by accepting funds in one country and paying them out
from a pool of money available in another country.
The money is placed in the traditional financial systems by the
brokers, but the source of the money and the true identify of the
owner or client of the broker is completely unknown to the finan-
cial system and therefore, completely without a paper trail. This
system is attractive to terrorist groups and those who move the
money they need to support their activity.
Law enforcement has evidence that the BMPE has been used by
Middle Eastern terrorist organizations in the past and is more
available and attractive to them now than ever. Correspondent
banking is the vehicle that is allowing these underground systems
to broaden their access to U.S. financial systems from anywhere in
the world. I believe the legislation referenced here earlier this
morning will be an important step toward closing that unguarded
back door to the U.S. financial system.
54
Mr. Chairman, I believe if we are to stop terrorist money move-

ment, we must disrupt and dismantle systems like the BMPE that
make drug money available to terrorists not only in the Middle
East, but also throughout the world. I further believe that U.S. law
enforcement has the ability to take on this vital task. But it must
overcome two challenges before it can succeed.
The first challenge is coordination: Money laundering is like a
balloonif you squeeze it one place, it will just get bigger some
place else. Unless we attack these money laundering systems with
a coordinated plan to squeeze in all directions at once, we will not
pop the balloon. Overlapping money laundering jurisdictions frus-
trate our ability to coordinate our attack. Law enforcement is a
competitive business and to date, these agencies have not been able
to effectively cooperate with one another in a global assault on
these systems. Asset forfeiture funds that return monies to the
seizing agency exacerbate this competition between agencies.
A second problem involves the natural focus of law enforcement
on the prosecution of individuals. The BMPE is a financial system
with an infrastructure and as such, is not dependent on any one
individual or group of individuals. Therefore, a plan that is directed
primarily toward arresting and prosecuting the drug traffickers,
the money launderers and the terrorists who use this system will
not by itself stop the system.
The final challenge I see before law enforcement is to place the
goal of disruption and dismantlement of the system on an equal
footing with prosecuting the individuals who use it.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to restate that our
Government has the ability, the authority, and the knowledge to
take action now against the BMPE and similar systems used by
terrorists to launder funds.
I firmly believe that unless a high-level position is designated to
have the sole ownership of this problem and the responsibility to
solve it, we will continue to have impact on these systems, but fail
to stop the process, as we have failed to do for the last 20 years.
I hope that the Cabinet-level Homeland Security post will be
used as such a position. Without this or a similar overarching posi-
tion to marshal and direct the tools and abilities we have available,
I fear that we will continue to fail to take these underground and
unregulated financial systems out of the reach of international ter-
rorists and other criminal elements who thrive on discreet and
untraceable funds.
Chairman SARBANES. Thank you all very much for some very
helpful statements.
I wonder if someone could develop a little bit how the Hawala
system works.
Mr. JAMES. I will be glad to take a first shot at it. As was men-
tioned earlier this morning, this system is hundreds of years old.
And it really operates through a network of brokers that are in
place throughout the financial centers of the world, and in the Mid-
dle Eastern area that has the people that need to use the system.
A good example of how it might work is that a person in the Mid-
dle East might need to pay a bill, say in London, that is due for
goods that they have imported from London to the Middle East. So
55
that person in the Middle East would go to a Hawala broker with

the equivalent value of the debt owed in whatever the currency of
that area. He would basically make a deposit with that broker.
The broker would then contact his counterpart in London and he
would tell that counterpart to draw on a pool of money already
there and send a payment to whoever the exporter was that was
owed the debt. Those two brokers then would square up their ac-
counts as they went along. Usually, the account would be squared
up because someone in London would owe money to someone in the
Middle East. So, they would go to the broker on their side and they
would bring in pounds sterling and say, I want this amount of
money transferred to an individual in the Middle East to pay my
debt. The brokers would then work the transaction the other way
and in that way, eventually square up their books. The important
thing about this system is that no money moves internationally.
There is no international wire transfer.
The two individuals who handle the transaction know each other,
trust each other. The individuals who do business with them know
them, trust them. No records are kept. And although these pools
of money may be kept in the financial systems of the various coun-
tries that they are working in, the financial institutions have no
idea whose money this really is and on whose behalf deposits are
being made and moved around. This is a complex system, but that
is my stab at a simple answer.
Chairman SARBANES. How do they even up their accounts? Your
example sort of posited a two-way street that would roughly bal-
ance out. And so, therefore, the broker in the United States who
provides dollars on the direction from elsewhere money provided
would then turn around and works a deal the other way. But sup-
pose it does not balance out? How do they even up their accounts?
Mr. WINER. Mr. Chairman, if I may on that point. They have ties
to the official banking system. They will have a cash-intense busi-
ness, whether it is a grocery store or a hotel or a restaurant or a
casino, or whatever, and they will move money through that and
they will reconcile through wire transfers like anybody else with
whatever they need to do pushed into their legitimate business. So
the legitimate funds hide the underground funds when necessary
for reconciliation.
Mr. JAMES. I would also add just for one second, that I have de-
scribed the most common way that Hawala works, which is two
quasi-independent brokers doing business with one another.
Another way that these underground systems can operate, and
Hawala does at times, Black Market Peso does quite often, is that
the operatives in the United States are actually minions of the
broker in Colombia or Venezuela or wherever. So, in that case, they
do not really need to balance up because it is all operatives of the
same guy. He just has two parallel accounts, one in each country.
The Hawala can also work that way, but usually does not.
Mr. WECHSLER. And the other key element is, the word Hawala
is a Hindi word which means in trust. The people that are involved
in the system have been doing it because their families have been
involved in this for generations. You just cannot show up one day
and say, I am a Hawala broker and I want to join this business.
It does not work like that. It is a more connected network.
56
So unlike we would think in the western sense where you need

to balance the books everyday or every week, unbalanced books
might go on for a while because at the end of the day, you know
that your fifth cousin is good for it. It might be a while before these
kinds of balancing networks that my two colleagues here have de-
scribed might actually take place.
Chairman SARBANES. Now, I take it that there are people func-
tioning as Hawalas who just do a normal range of legitimate activi-
ties. Is that correct?
Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. WECHSLER. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about it.
It has been going on for hundreds of years. I am sure that the
Hawala system, like any other banking system, the predominate
number of people in it use it legitimately.
In some places of the world, it is the only banking system. It un-
fortunately provides a lot of real advantages for people who are in-
terested in covering dirty money, though, and that is where the
real concern comes in.
Mr. WINER. The State Department for a number of years has
identified underground alternative remittance systems, including
Hawala, which is South Asian-based, the Iron Triangle of Hawala
is Dubai, Pakistan, and India, and the Hundi system, which is an
old Chinese system which is similar, sometimes called chop houses
or flying money houses, as a mechanism by which drug traffickers,
international criminals, and terrorists can launder their money, be-
cause the money does not have to cross borders and it can be com-
pletely anonymous.
You go in, you put your cash on the table, you pay the brokers
fee, you arrange for the secret code at the other end in the other
country, you wait until that is paid. When you get the word that
it has been paid, you pay it over to the broker in this country. As
a result, this has been identified as a tremendous vulnerability all
over the world by the State Department going back at least 6, 7,
8 years.
Hong Kong, when it decided it had to create a modern anti-
money laundering system, found that it could not enforce any anti-
money laundering laws unless it required the registration of every
Hawala broker in Hong Kong. That registration requirement came
into effect last year and it is one of the most important steps that
Hong Kong took.
It is a step the Congress commanded the Administration to take
in 1993, in AnnunzioWylie, but which has yet to be put into effect
as of today. Once you put it into effect, you can go after people who
do not register and you can work your way up the chain, you can
seize assets, and you can shut down that vulnerability.
Chairman SARBANES. Where does the bin Laden Hawala rep-
resentative here get his pool of cash to respond to the directive that
this cash should be furnished, let us say, to bin Ladens operatives
who are here undercover?
Mr. WINER. Remittances from good, honest, honorable people.
Suppose that I am originally from Pakistan, for example, and I
have made a lot of money in the United States working incredibly
hard, 60 hours a day. I have taken care of my family and now I
want to take care of my mother and father who are still back in
57
Pakistan. If I send the money through the formal banking system,

they may have to deal with corrupt officials. They may have to deal
with different types of taxes or other problems. They are not used
to it. They do not have bank accounts.
Mr. WECHSLER. Or it might not exist in their city.
Mr. WINER. They might not even have bank accounts or a bank.
So, you go to the Hawala with your cash and you say, I want it
delivered to such and such city in Pakistan. Can you do that?
The Hawala broker goes to the back room, uses his e-mail sys-
temit used to be faxes. Before that it was phones. Before that it
was mail. Before that it was mules and camels. But today it is e-
mail. He e-mails a person in that city. He says, yes, we have money
in that city. I can do it. He then arranges for it. Now the currency
is in the United States and the mother and the father have gotten
their remittances to take care of them.
Honest people at that point doing honest transactions, but it is
totally anonymous. That anonymous money is now available to be
used when an agent of bin Laden goes to that Pakistani or Dubai
broker or anywhere else where the system is in place and says,
here is $100,000. I want this $100,000, or the equivalent thereof,
to be made available to a fellow in Vera Beach who is going to use
the password pilot. The person in Vera Beach uses the password
pilot and now has currency, the same currency provided by good
people for good purposes to take care of their parents.
Mr. JAMES. Actually
Chairman SARBANES. What does Hawalaexcuse me. Go ahead.
Mr. JAMES. Well, I was just going to add to that that he probably
will not even get it in currency. The Hawala broker will arrange
a transfer right to a bank account he already has set up, probably
with a credit card available to it. They can go either way.
Mr. WINER. That is one place where there is minor disagreement
in the currency for terrorists that becomes operational security.
And so, they can provide that currency both ways. In the case of
remittances, currency often is preferred. That is one of the dif-
ferences between the black market in the Americas and the way
Hawala has worked in some of the cases in South Asia.
Chairman SARBANES. What does the Hawala broker here do with
the money that has been given to him by the honest worker, which
was then remitted in the country from which the worker came to
his family, so that we have the transaction?
The Hawala broker here then has presumably cash or a check
from this honest worker. So, he has this money, what does he do
with that money in the interim?
Mr. JAMES. Well, that is part of what Jonathan and I were just
talking about. He can either hold it in cash, put it in a little black
box under his bed, if you will, or he can put it in a financial institu-
tion, in an account that he controls.
Chairman SARBANES. He may put it into the financial system.
Mr. JAMES. Oh, yes, sir.
Chairman SARBANES. Do they generally do that, or do they gen-
erally hold it in cash? Do you know?
Mr. WINER. It is a mix, sir. We do not know nearly as much
about the system as we need to. But people in the U.S. Govern-
ment, particularly at FinCEN, who have spent the most time inves-
58
tigating this, together with my colleague to my left, Mr. James and

Mr. Passic, people who have really spent a lot of time with this,
have found constant intermingling between the underground alter-
native remittance economy and the official economy, which is why
they often have other businesses in addition to being Hawalas.
Mr. WECHSLER. We should also not overstate at all, notwith-
standing the very good work that a few dedicated people, particu-
larly at FinCEN have done on this, on understanding the system,
should not overstate by any way the knowledge that the Federal
Government has about the extent and the uses of Hawala in the
United States.
In my opinion, as a general matter, U.S. law enforcement has
done a very poor job over the years of understanding this system,
of getting inside the system, of figuring out who uses the system.
And that is something that needs to change quickly.
Mr. WINER. I concur.
Mr. JAMES. I would agree with that. I would add that one of the
gaping holes in our knowledge of how this Hawala system works
is their use of a second international network of gold brokers, buy-
ers and sellers of gold, that also interplay with the Hawala system.
And we do not know exactly how that works.
But we know that they use gold as a hedge and they may also
call up a gold broker in a different country where they do not have
funds, but they have a relationship with a series of gold brokers
and use that to move the money. There are experts at FinCEN who
have information on that, but we have not studied it fully at all.
Mr. WINER. I would like to add one quick comment to that, which
is that there is a brain drain in the Federal Government which
takes place a lot of times because of salaries, benefits, changes in
policy, whatever.
The best expert that I know in the United States Government on
these alternative systems, who used to be with the Financial En-
forcement Center, does not work for the Government anymore. I
found out recently that he left around the same time that I left.
And that brain drain problem and the lack of focused, concentrated
effort over an extended period of time and adequate resources fur-
ther impairs our ability to do good work in this area because when
somebody gets good, they tend to get snapped up at a substantially
higher salary in the private sector. Literally, the best person I
know, Patrick Jost, who was at FinCEN, is now in the private sec-
tor. I do not know what capacity exists since his departure.
Chairman SARBANES. We are going to draw to a close, but I
wanted to ask about the chart to my left, your right, Jonathan.
Mr. WINER. Yes, sir.
Chairman SARBANES. I have been looking at the copy. These are
helpful charts, but they are very hard to read, particularly at a dis-
tance. That chart which shows the charitable organizations box and
all the different charities that are feeding into it, now how have
you been able to determine that these are front organizations that
are moving money into the bin Laden operation?
Mr. WINER. This chart is not based on classified or secret govern-
ment information. It is based on the following kinds of sources. It
is based on statements made at trials, in the 1993 bombing trial,
for example, the first World Trade Center attack trial, where a
59
number of these came up, and statements that came out in the
course of investigations. It is based on scandals, such as where peo-
ple in other governments have been tied to terrorist activity.
For example, in the Philippines, the International Economic Re-
lief Organization ran into a scandal where the minister of tourism
in the Philippines was associated with it while it was supporting
Abu Sahaf, an organization which bin Laden has been supporting,
which was named by President Bush on his list on Monday.
Mr. WECHSLER. Osama bin Ladens brother-in-law.
Mr. WINER. His brother-in-law was the financier there.
Every one of these represents either a scandal that has emerged,
or very significant allegations, or material that has come out in law
enforcement cases. This was designed to be representative, to pro-
vide the flavor of the multifaceted network that is out there. Now
some of these charities that are listed here as front organizations
have been so identified in public records. Other charities are pri-
marily or substantially legitimate enterprises doing good works
whose funds have been diverted, taken advantage of, or used for
terrorist purposes, according to one account or another over time.
The point of showing so many of them, and there are 17 charities
on this chart and there are about as many banks and about as
many industry and service companies, is that dealing with this re-
quires a multinational effort on many sectors simultaneously.
The holes and sieves in our existing money laundering enforce-
ment system are very substantial. And they are particularly sub-
stantial in the Middle East, where no country that I know of in the
Middle East has ever brought a money laundering prosecution.
Only a couple of them even have comprehensive money laundering
laws, and none did a few years ago.
The United States has put very heavy pressure, for example, on
Cyprus, as has the European Union, because Cyprus used to be a
major center for terrorist finance. The Cypriots, who want to be in
the European Union, responded by changing all their laws, very ag-
gressively moving to create comprehensive protections.
The next thing that the United States and the United Kingdom
found out, was that Cyprus was being used by Slobadon Milosovich
to move his money. They went back to the Cypriots. The Cypriots
said we have a great system. It is the best system in the world.
We do not have any of that money. But then after that,
Milosovichs money was no longer in Cyprus. That tends to be the
pattern. We have had the same kinds of sets of initiatives with
Lebanon, with Israel, with the United Arab Emirates, and quite re-
cently, with Nigeria and Egypt. This process has to be accelerated
and it has to be comprehensive. And these countries need to put
transparency in place in their systems. There is a history in these
countries because a lot of the money comes from the top down, of
not wanting necessarily to have really good oversight mechanism
that would allow you to trace assets. This demonstrates why it is
essential that every part of the world begin to have that.
Chairman SARBANES. What about the industry service sectors?
What does that represent?
Mr. WINER. It represents legitimate businesses and front compa-
nies both, through which the terrorists associated with bin Ladens
financed terrorist activities and hid terrorist activities. If you are
60
in the gum arabic business, which are ingredient in most tonics or

sodas and any number of other candies and consumables, that is
a great business to generate legitimate revenues. You can then use
those legitimate revenues to support illicit activity.
Same with the fishery, anchovy business. If you have a construc-
tion business, that pretty much speaks for itself. Drug trafficking
organizations have often gone into construction as a way to launder
their money. They did that in Colombia, Venezuela and Panama,
at the height of the reinvestment of drug money in the Americas.
So these are relatively standard mechanisms used to launder
money and to conflate and integrate illicit funds with licit funds.
Chairman SARBANES. Now, Mr. Wechsler, you talked about the
international effort. You were very much involved in helping to put
that together. Ambassador Eizenstat made reference to it. I gather
there has been some significant progress through working through
these international groups and getting countries to upgrade their
regimes. Mr. Winer just made reference to the improvements in
Cyprus as a consequence of the interaction with the European
Union, and so forth. So what is your view of the progress that is
being made in that area?
Mr. WECHSLER. Well, the world took a real turn last year when
it really, as Former Deputy Secretary Eizenstat explained, when
the Financial Action Task Force went after these countries. A lot
of progress has been made. But there are two real questions that
are outstanding.
Chairman SARBANES. Actually, we need to stay abreast of it be-
cause, as he pointed out, there was one view that was prevailing
about Switzerland and how they were performing. And now, we
have a very different view prevailing about Switzerland.
Mr. WECHSLER. That is exactly right, sir.
Chairman SARBANES. And I gather, you mentioned Cyprus. But
they have also apparently markedly changed their system.
Mr. WINER. Yes, sir.
Chairman SARBANES. So we need to stay current in terms of who
is trying to come into the community of nations and who remains
outside of it. Would you agree with that observation?
Mr. WECHSLER. I would absolutely agree with that observation.
Two things to look at. The first is, a little over a year ago, the
G7 finance ministers, when Secretary Summers met with his col-
leagues, they made explicit threats about what would happen to
these countries that were outside the international standards, if
they stayed outside too long. And explicitly, they threatened to cut
off from, not just the U.S. financial system, but also the entire G
7 financial system. The last time the finance ministers met, that
threat was toned back to issue stronger advisories warning. And
the deadline was extended, mostly to allow Russia more time to
pass a money laundering law, which they have, although they have
done nothing thus far on implementation of that law. So if I could
suggest, a role for the Congress would be really to stay abreast of
this and make sure that adequate pressure is still being put on.
The second thing is there was a parallel effort to go after tax ha-
vens because tax evasion is of course a crime, just like other
crimes. All too often, criminals can disguise their money as just the
proceeds of tax evasion, not the proceeds of other types of crimes.
61
And there are some countries, not the United States, but there are
some countries that treat this as a difference. Switzerland, as you
mentioned, has done very good on money laundering recently, but
still refuses to cooperate on all tax evasion cases. They do not be-
lieve it is a crime. This is, unfortunately, one of Treasury Secretary
ONeills first decisions, was to really withdraw in many ways the
United States from the international efforts to combat tax evasion,
and they have really suffered as an effect.
Chairman SARBANES. He has come back into it some.
Mr. WECHSLER. Well, he got the rest of the world to agree to
change it the way that he wanted to change it. And the main way
that he wanted to change it was to take off the table the threat
of sanctions. And if there is no threat of sanctionssome countries
will improve because they do not like bad publicity. But at the end
of the day, there are going to be some countries that will weigh the
costs and benefits and say, it is better for them to take tax evasion
money. If sanctions are off the table, or off the table at least in the
foreseeable future, that is a real problem.
Chairman SARBANES. Let us see how it develops. I know that
Secretary Summers was very intensely interested in this issue and
very willing to take some very strong positions. Obviously, this is
something that we will need to monitor closely.
Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. Sorry.
Mr. WINER. Mr. Chairman, there is one issue which arose earlier
which I would like to have a brief opportunity to address.
Chairman SARBANES. Sure.
Mr. WINER. Which is the issue of due process. I believe it is true
that there is already an established right of review of Treasury
Secretary administrative decisions in this area. So a due process
system is already in place. The key relevant case is a case called
Paradissiotis v. Rubin, 171 Fed. 3rd 983, 1999. This was a chal-
lenge to a decision by the Office of Foreign Asset Control at Treas-
ury to freeze an individuals assets. And this said the review in dis-
trict and appeals court is appropriate with administrative action.
So for those people who are concerned about that, I think the Fed-
eral courts have already answered that question.
I am happy to share that case name and cite with the Com-
mittee. Thank you, sir.
Chairman SARBANES. Well, that is helpful and we will certainly
look into that because the due process question is one that we will
have to address or deal with as we formulate this legislation.
Is there anything you gentlemen would like to add?
Mr. JAMES. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WECHSLER. No, thank you.
Chairman SARBANES. We thank you all very much for coming
and for the contributions you have made.
The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and addi-
tional material supplied for the record follow:]
62
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
I want to begin by welcoming Senators Levin, Kerry, and Grassley, as well as
Representatives LaFalce, Leach, and Roukema to our hearing. They along with a
bipartisan group of Members of Congress, including Senator Schumer and Rep-
resentative Velazquez, have long advocated aggressive legislative initiatives to
counter money laundering.
This mornings hearing focuses on the Federal Governments efforts to fight
money launderingwhat has been done, and what must be done. Its starting point
is the National Money Laundering Strategy for 2001, mandated by the Money Laun-
dering and Financial Crimes Act of 1998.
We will first hear from our Congressional colleagues. They will be followed by
Jimmy Gurule , Under Secretary of Treasury for Enforcement and Michael Chertoff,
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
Next we will hear from Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Former Deputy Secretary of
the Treasury. He will be followed by William Wechsler, Former Clinton Administra-
tion National Security Council staff member and Treasury Money Laundering Advi-
sor; Jonathan Winer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International
Law Enforcement; and Former Treasury Special Agent Alvin James.
We meet, of course, in the shadow of the terrorist attacks of September 11. It is
more urgent now than ever before for us to develop and put in place the array of
tools necessary to trace and interdict the funds on which terrorists like Osama bin
Laden rely to pay for their operations. Make no mistakethe terrorist campaign
confronting us is not a penny-ante proposition. It cannot be carried out without
major investments of time, planning, training, and practiceand the financial
means to pay the bills. Our response to terrorism must include national and inter-
national programs to checkmate terrorism that are as complex and sophisticated as
the practice of terrorism itself.
September 11 has sharpened our focus on the ways that vulnerabilities in regu-
latory and enforcement procedures in our financial system can be exploited to sup-
port terrorism. We have long known, however, the toll that money laundering takes
on world economic activities. The IMF estimates the global volume of laundered
money to be 2 to 5 percent of global GDP annuallythat is, between $600 billion
and $1.5 trillion. Money laundering combines the investment banking and payment
system mechanisms of the criminal financial system; it fuels organized crime; it cre-
ates the transmission belt for money spirited out of national treasuries in numerous
countries by corrupt officials. It is the terrorists source of financial oxygen.
The United States has long taken the initiative in efforts to stop the laundering
of proceeds from crime and corruption, beginning with the passage in 1970 of the
Bank Secrecy Act. That Act requires banks to report suspicious activities and large
currency transactions. But despite the progress we have made, especially during the
last 15 years, money laundering has become more difficult to detect. Globalization,
which eliminates barriers to free capital movement and relies on advanced tech-
nology, makes it possible to move money virtually instantly between any two points
on the globe. These changed circumstances have left normal banking practices and
traditionally tolerated offshore banking facilities open to grave abuse.
Recent investigations by Senator Levins Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga-
tions have revealed that correspondent banking facilities and private banking serv-
ices offered by U.S. banks can contribute to international money laundering by
impeding financial transparency and hiding foreign client identity and activity. The
Committees reports also described how crime syndicates, corrupt foreign dictators,
and narcotics traffickers use these practices and exploit loopholes in current U.S.
law. Thus criminals and terrorists achieve hidden, but direct, access to the U.S. fi-
nancial system, moving under the radar screen of U.S. law enforcement officials and
financial supervisors.
The Administration has yet to clarify fully its views on money laundering. In the
wake of the September 11 attacks the Administration has asserted the need to track
down the financial circuits that support terrorism, and the Presidents Executive
Order of September 24 freezes the assets of 27 groups and individuals. This is cer-
tainly a step in the right direction. In the past, however, Administration officials
have expressed skepticism about anti-money laundering laws already on the books,
and about at least some aspects of U.S. involvement in multilateral efforts aimed
at offshore bank secrecy havens.
It is time to cut the financial lifelines which facilitate terrorist operations by re-
ducing the vulnerabilities and closing the loopholes in our financial system. I note
with great interest that within the past week both The Washington Post and The
New York Times have argued forcefully for tougher and broader laws. In an editorial
on Saturday, September 22, The Post urged that current reporting requirements be
63
extended beyond banks to other types of financial institutions, such as stock-
brokers, insurers, and casinos. The reports that allies of last weeks hijackers may
have bought financial options to profit from the carnage underscore the suspicion
that a bank-only focus is too narrow. And 2 days ago The New York Times called
upon the Administration and the Congress to revive international efforts begun
during the Clinton Administration to pressure countries . . . to adopt and enforce
stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing busi-
ness with financial institutions based in these nations.
This is the time to move forward decisively, to address a confused and hazy situa-
tion that has plagued us for years, and today poses an unprecedented challenge.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
I recognize that Chairman Sarbanes scheduled a hearing on money laundering
long before the tragic events of September 11. However, since that day, many have
discussed the need to rush money laundering legislation through the Congress to
address ongoing terrorist activities. While addressing money laundering is a very
important matter, I think we need to be very careful as we proceed.
In order to be effective, it is very important that we clearly establish what area
of concern we are trying to address. By definition, money laundering involves the
process by which dirty money obtained from criminal activity is funneled through
various conduits until it appears to be clean proceeds of legal activities. Targeting
money laundering, therefore, is a means to combat criminal activity such as the
drug trade, illegal gambling, and other forms of organized crime that generate con-
siderable amounts of cash.
In general, it appears that financial gains are very rarely made or are difficult
to discern as a result of terrorist activity. From what we currently know, terrorists
do not routinely employ traditional money laundering methods. The vast proportion
of financing for terrorist activities is provided by networking relatively small
amounts of clean money to terrorist cells that use it to achieve their cowardly
ends. Yesterdays Wall Street Journal pointed this out, noting:
. . . Instead of laundering money from illegitimate enterprises such as drug
trafficking, bin Laden, and other suspected sponsors of terrorism do the op-
posite: They take money from legitimate businesses and charitable organi-
zations and . . . use it for terrorist activities.
The article very aptly described this kind of financing as reverse money laun-
dering.
I raise this issue because I want to make sure that recent events do not confuse
our efforts. We must deal with terrorism with the tools best able to combat it; we
must address organized crime with the tools best able to combat it. While in some
cases the same tools may prove effective on both fronts, we need to be able to recog-
nize the wide range of criminal activities and adopt measures that can most effec-
tively defeat them.
I look forward to hearing from todays witnesses.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending you for rescheduling this very impor-
tant hearing so quickly. As we all know, anti-money laundering tactics will play a
critical role in our war against terrorism, and I would like to note for the record
that Senator Sarbanes had the foresight to schedule a hearing on this topic well be-
fore the attacks of 2 weeks ago.
Chairman Sarbanes identified early on that our National Money Laundering
Strategy is a critical weapon in our arsenal against terrorists, drug lords, organized
crime syndicates, and others. I am proud to be a Member of this Committee, which
plays a critical role in our Nations anti-money laundering efforts. I also would like
to thank President Bush for taking decisive action this week to move forward with
what is at least the first step in a silent war on the financial assets of those who
so cowardly attacked America 2 weeks ago.
Over the past 2 weeks, we have all learned the power and strength of a united
front. Americans have come together against a common enemy, and I am confident
that we will prevail in achieving justice. We in Congress are working in a bipartisan
fashion to make sure that our Nations law enforcement personnel have the weapons
64
they need to win the war on terrorism, whether these weapons are F16 fighter jets,
computer capability, or access to financial activity that bears further investigation.
I look forward to hearing from todays witnesses. The President has just released
his National Money Laundering Strategy, which sets out the Administrations plan
to choke off the lifeblood of terrorists and other groups that use the American and
global financial system to further their destructive ends. Together, we need to deter-
mine whether our current laws provide law enforcement with sufficient ammunition
to defeat the enemy.
Of course, even with the best laws, we must work together to promote strong en-
forcement of these laws. Clearly, our efforts will be much more fruitful if the spirit
of cooperation that has helped Congress respond quickly to our national tragedy
spreads to the law enforcement community.
We must continue to encourage U.S. law enforcement agencies to cooperate in
their anti-money laundering efforts. The Treasury, the FBI, the CIA, and other na-
tional, State, and local enforcement agencies can be particularly effective when they
share vital information and work together toward a common goal.
We also need to work with our banking regulatory agencies to review which proce-
dures and examinations required under current law are effective. And we need to
take care that any new legislation provides those agencies with sufficient regulatory
flexibility to respond to constantly changing money laundering strategies. And we
need to pay special attention not just to mainstream financial institutions, but also
to money services businesses (MSB). MSBs are notoriously difficult to monitor, but
are a critical component of any successful national anti-money laundering strategy.
We also need to call on the financial services sector to continue their cooperation
with law enforcement to root out terrorists and others who abuse our financial insti-
tutions. We need to craft laws that banks can implement without undue burden or
intrusion into customer privacy. At the same time, we ask our financial institutions
to be patient and do all they can to help this Nation in its war against terrorism.
Finally, we must encourage international cooperation and information sharing
that allows the freedom-loving global community to shut down financial systems
that support these cowardly acts of terrorism. Cooperation must extend beyond our
borders to be effective.
The Senate Banking Committee has an important opportunity to help wage our
silent war on terrorism, and I am pleased to be part of that.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

I would like to thank Chairman Sarbanes for holding this hearing. I know that
money laundering has been an important issue to him, and that importance was
brought into sharp focus by the terrorist attack on September 11. Mr. Chairman,
I appreciate the speed and purpose with which you have moved forward.
Money laundering is a significant problem for this Nation. Not only does the fi-
nancial gain of money laundering provide an incentive for crime, but it is also used
to finance further criminal activity. The recent terrorist attacks are an excellent ex-
ample of why we must focus on eradicating money laundering. Such an operation
clearly took a great deal of financial backing, and it is doubtful that the terrorists
earned the money through legitimate means. We have to find a way to cut off the
financial fuel for these criminals. As we examine this issue, though, we must not
forget the civil liberties that have made our Nation the greatest nation on earth.
In an effort to combat financial crime we must avoid the temptation to inappropri-
ately infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
One example of this is the so-called Know Your Customer regulations proposed
by the four Federal banking regulators under the Clinton Administration. These
regulations would have forced banks to know the identity of all their customers,
know the source of customers funds, create a profile of normal and expected trans-
actions for each customer, monitor each account for activity that deviated from the
profile, and report deviations. I believe these regulations went too far, and I led the
effort in this Committee and on the Senate floor to get the Senate on record as
unanimously opposing the regulations. The Know Your Customer regulations were
subsequently withdrawn. Through thoughtful, careful discussions such as this, I be-
lieve that we can find the proper balance between fighting money laundering and
respecting civil liberties. I would like to express my willingness to work with my
colleagues and the Administration to find the appropriate balance.
I would also like to commend the Administration for their willingness to examine
the cost and effectiveness of current money laundering strategies. As we consider
possible new legislation it is important that we have a clear understanding of the
65
current status. I have been a long time supporter of outcome-based management,
and I am hopeful that this will be an example of those principles.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today, especially since this
hearing had to be rescheduled. I know that you all have important points to make,
and I look forward to your testimony.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

First of all, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the
Committee today. They all have extensive knowledge dealing with this issue, and
I am sure they will be able to offer us special insights into the hidden world of
money laundering. I would also like to thank our colleagues, Senators Grassley,
Kerry, and Levin who have all done a lot of work to combat this problem, and Con-
gressman LaFalce and Congresswoman Roukema for their efforts in the House.
With the recent attacks against the United States, a new urgency exists in deal-
ing with money laundering. While we already pour heavy resources into anti-money
laundering efforts, our results have not been at the levels we need. Drug cartels,
terrorists, and other types of organized crime continue to prosper through complex
financial networks that elude the law enforcement community. These funds help
provide a foundation for these groups to grow their illegal empires. Until we are
able to effectively reduce the funds these groups receive, we will be unable to curtail
the violence that follows.
Over the past 30 years, since passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, the Congress has
passed a number of good anti-money laundering initiatives. Now, we need to look
to see if these measures go far enough. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
has proven to be an efficient coordinator of our efforts, but when over $2 million
of laundered money runs through the U.S. economy each day, it is obvious we have
no where near the law enforcement mechanisms we need to combat these problems.
We must give the people on the front lines of this fight the needed tools with
which to work. We may need to reevaluate where existing funds are being directed
and confirm whether this is the best place for them. We also need to ensure that
the proper communication is taking place between law enforcement agencies. We
will in no way be able to win this fight without everyone working together. These
agencies must have open lines of communication.
I, for instance, was unaware that suspicious activity transaction reporting indi-
cated that shell companies appear to be incorporated and registered disproportion-
ately in Wyoming when compared with most other States. I intend to work with our
State banking officials to see what we can do to minimize any possible illegal activi-
ties that could be taking place.
In addition, we cannot place an undue burdens on industry. While we can expect
industry to help monitor banking transactions and assist our law enforcement agen-
cies as an integral front line player, we cannot force them to assume unnecessary
or repetitive requirements.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing
and I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying today. You should be com-
mended for your interest in this issue, even before the Presidents actions on Mon-
day made this hearing so timely.
Last week, when Secretary ONeill was before this Committee testifying, we
touched on the subject of money laundering. I am looking forward to hearing what
my colleagues, the Senators from Michigan and Massachusetts have to say in their
testimony. I am looking forward to learning more about their bills.
I am also looking forward to hearing the Administrations thoughts from Under
Secretary Gurule . I want to follow-up with him on what we touched upon last week.
And I want to see what the other distinguished panelists have to say about how
these proposals will affect the financial services industry.
This is not the first time we have attempted to tackle this issue. Though no one
wants to get in the way of stopping terrorists, drug lords, and other criminals, there
has been a lot of fear surrounding the issue. If my colleagues got the mail I did
66
in 1999, and I think they did, they know there was a lot of animosity toward some
of the know your customer proposals.
We have to ensure that we balance security with privacy and make sure that we
are focusing efforts in the most effective way to combat criminals to choke off their
money supply.
We also have to ensure that banks can actually comply with the laws and regula-
tions that we put upon them, especially small banks. The small bankers in my State
already know their customers. If there is a criminal enterprise washing its money
through a small bank in Kentucky, my bankers will know it and I have faith that
they will report it. But obviously we cannot just rely on the honor system. I guess
what I would like to get out of this hearing is whether we need more legislation,
or we just need to give our regulators the tools to better enforce current legislation.
Unfortunately, because of the despicable actions of September 11, our lives are
going to change. The challenge now is balancing freedom and security. This is a
challenge the Senate is going to continue to wrestle with for the foreseeable future.
We will have to think hard about the implications of this challenge. Every time we
take a vote on these issues, we may be harming one at the expense of the other.
There will not be many easy answers.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL LEVIN
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I am here this morning
to share with you the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with
respect to international money laundering. Over the past 3 years we have conducted
an extensive investigation into the use of U.S. banks for money laundering pur-
poses. We have held 3 sets of hearings and produced 2 extensive reports as well as
a 5 volume record on how correspondent banking has been used as a tool for money
laundering. To address the problems we have uncovered, in August I introduced
along with Senator Grassley, Chairman Sarbanes, and Senators Kyl, DeWine, Bill
Nelson, and DurbinS. 1371, the Money Laundering Abatement Act. This bill has
been referred to this Committee, and I hope to work with the Committees Members
to get it enacted into law.
Tightening our money laundering laws will strike a blow against terrorism, be-
cause a consensus has emerged that any effective anti-terrorism campaign must
include tracking the money supply that funds terrorism and shutting it down. Dis-
rupting terrorists financial networks is vital to ending their ability to carry out
massive terrorist operations like the September 11 tragedy.
Unlike drug and organized crime operations, terrorist acts sometimes do not gen-
erate illegal proceeds that have to be laundered. Terrorists use financial networks
to collect funds from both legitimate and illegitimate sources and make them avail-
able to carry out terrorist acts. Look at what we know so far about the September
11 terrorists. According to press reports, the 19 terrorists identified by the FBI used
cash, checks, credit cards, and wire transfers involving U.S. banks in States such
as Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. We have seen the photograph of 2 terror-
ists using a U.S. banks ATM. There are also reports that the 19 terrorists left be-
hind large unpaid credit card bills, in effect using U.S. credit card companies to help
finance the September 11 attack. The fact that these terrorists used U.S. financial
institutions to accomplish their ends does not mean that any U.S. bank or credit
card company did anything wrong; these terrorists may have met every requirement
for credentials and credit histories, false though such information may prove to be.
But the evidence is clear that terrorists are using our own financial institutions
against us, and we need to understand our vulnerabilities and take new measures
to protect ourselves from similar abuses down the road.
One of the vulnerabilities that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
has concentrated on is how correspondent banking is used for money laundering.
Correspondent banking occurs when one bank provides services to another bank to
move funds or carry out other financial transactions. For example, if a bank in Lon-
don has a client who wants U.S. dollars available to him or her in the United
States, the London bank needs a correspondent relationship with a U.S. bank will-
ing to make those dollars available in the United States. That means the U.S. bank
has to agree to open and manage a correspondent account for the London bank.
We found that U.S. banks often perform an inadequate background review of the
foreign banks seeking to open a correspondent account in the United States. Too
often the U.S. banks assumedand we heard this verbatimthat a bank is a bank
67
is a bank. But that is not the reality. There are good banks and there are bad
banks, and we found numerous situations where U.S. banks held accounts for
foreign banks engaged in criminal activity or operated with such poor banking prac-
tices that they provided an open invitation for criminals to bank with them. Crimi-
nals can then use these bad banks to gain access to the U.S. banking system
through their U.S. correspondent accounts. We found that current law has many
holes in how it treats money laundering through correspondent accounts. So, I de-
signed my bill to close them and tighten anti-money laundering controls over cor-
respondent banking.
Look at what we have recently learned about the Al Qaeda terrorist organization
headed by bin Laden. Numerous media reports have described the many corpora-
tions and businesses that bin Laden has helped establish and finance over the
years. According to a 1996 State Department fact sheet, in 1991, bin Laden helped
establish a bank in the Sudan called the Al Shamal Islamic Bank, allegedly pro-
viding it with initial capital of $50 million. An article dated March 16, 2000, in the
Indigo Publications Intelligence Newsletter states that bin Laden remains the lead-
ing shareholder of the bank.
Testimony provided in February 2001 at the trial concerning the 1998 terrorist
bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania described the Shamal
banks use by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. One bin Laden associate, Jamal Ahmed al-
Fadl, who had handled financial transactions for Al Qaeda, testified that Al Qaeda
had used a half dozen accounts at the Shamal bank; one account was in the name
of bin Laden. He described a 1994 incident in which the Shamal bank was used by
Al Qaeda to provide al-Fadl $100,000 in US $100 dollar bills which he was directed
to take on a plane to an individual in Jordan, which he did. This testimony shows
that, in 1994, the Shamal bank maintained accounts used by bin Laden and Al
Qaeda and was supplying bin Laden operatives with funds.
Testimony also demonstrated how a U.S. bank was used by bin Laden to send
money from the Shamal bank to a bin Laden associate in Texas using a cor-
respondent account. Essam al Ridi, who worked for bin Laden, testified that he re-
ceived a $250,000 wire transfer at his bank in Texas that was sent by the Shamal
bank, which he then used to purchase a plane for bin Laden and which he later
delivered himself to bin Laden. Transactions like this one were the focus of our re-
cent investigation into correspondent banking and money laundering, and that is
what I want to focus on this morninghow criminals, including terrorist organiza-
tions, can use the correspondent accounts of foreign banks to gain access to the U.S.
financial system. The Shamal banks website currently lists an extensive cor-
respondent network including banks in Europe and the United States. I have a
chart that shows some of the correspondent banks listed on the Shamal banks
website. Three of the banks are U.S. banksCitibank, American Express, and the
Arab American Bank which was recently acquired by the National Bank of Egypt.
Thankfully all three banks told us that the correspondent accounts they had with
the Shamal bank are either closed or have been largely inactive since 1997 or 1998.
This followed action taken by the U.S. Government in November 1997 to add Sudan
to its official list of countries that support terrorism.
But the Shamal banks website also lists as correspondents major banks in other
countries, including Credit Lyonnais in Switzerland, Commerz Bank in Germany,
ING Bank in Indonesia, and Standard Bank in South Africa, each of which also has
correspondent accounts with U.S. banks, and that is a problem.
First, we have to ask how the Shamal bank was able to open its correspondent
accounts in the United States when U.S. banks are supposed to exercise due dili-
gence about their customers; the bank is located in the Sudan, a country known for
lawlessness and weak-to-nonexistent banking regulation and anti-money laundering
controls; and the bank is also known to be associated with bin Laden. Under the
legislation I have sponsored, U.S. banks would have to exercise enhanced due dili-
gence, that means they would have to take an extra hard look at any bank from
the Sudan and could accept a Sudanese bank as a customer only if the U.S. bank
were convinced the Sudanese bank was completely above board and had appropriate
money laundering controls.
Second, we need to look at the current status of the Shamal banks correspondent
accounts in other countries. We learned in our Subcommittee investigation that bad
banks can nest in other foreign banks and obtain access to U.S. banks that way.
They can open a correspondent account with a foreign bank that already has a U.S.
correspondent account, and then take advantage of the correspondent chain to ac-
cess the U.S. financial system. This chart shows how bin Laden could be using the
Shamal bank to gain access to U.S. banks through the banks correspondent net-
works. We talked to four of these correspondent banks in countries other than the
United States, and they indicated to us that they still have Shamal bank cor-
68
respondent accounts that are not frozen. While at least three of these accounts have
reportedly experienced little activity and one was reported to law enforcement a few
weeks ago, all of these accounts are still open and could be used at any time. That
means any customer of the Shamal bankincluding a member of bin Ladens orga-
nizationcould penetrate the U.S. banking system by going through one of these
other correspondent accounts.
The Shamal bank is, of course, not the only bank of concern. Testimony in the
criminal trial identified several other banks with accounts being used by Al Qaeda.
Press reports indicate that Barclays Bank in London has already closed one suspect
account, and banks in countries as diverse as Switzerland, the United Arab Emir-
ates, Malaysia, and Hong Kong are checking their records for suspicious activity.
Banks in Afghanistan also warrant scrutiny, as indicated by this Bankers Almanac
printout which lists 9 banks with offices in Afghanistan, including two with cor-
respondents in the United States and elsewhere. While the U.S. accounts may,
again, be inactive, given the absence of Afghan banking and anti-money laundering
controls and the elevated status of bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghan society, we
need to ask how these banks were able to open correspondent accounts in the first
place and what steps, if any, its correspondents have taken to ensure terrorist funds
were not and are not moving through them.
Another possibility is that bin Laden has set up his own shell banks to handle
terrorist activities. Shell banks are unaffiliated with any other bank and have no
physical presence in any jurisdiction. They are licensed by a handful of jurisdictions
around the world including Nauru, Vanuatu, and Montenegro. This chart shows
how shell banks can be used to gain entry to the U.S. banking system. My Sub-
committees investigation found shell banks carry the highest money laundering
risks in the banking world because they are inherently unavailable for effective
oversight. There is no office where a bank regulator or law enforcement official can
go to observe bank operations, review documents, or freeze funds. Essentially no one
but the shell banks owners know what the bank is up to. Our staff report provides
four detailed case histories of shell banks that opened U.S. correspondent accounts
and used them to move funds related to drug trafficking, bribe money, and financial
fraud money. The possibility that terrorists are using such banks to conduct their
operations is one that cannot be ignored.
Some good news is that more countries than ever before have passed anti-money
laundering laws requiring their financial institutions to know their customers and
report suspicious activity. More countries have empowered law enforcement to
freeze suspect assets. New technologies can scan millions of financial transactions
to link seemingly unrelated transactions and detect suspicious patterns and trans-
actions. Financial intelligence units have been established in over 50 countries with
the authority, technology, and resources to identify and investigate suspicious activ-
ity. They have formed the Egmont Group and developed international protocols for
sharing financial information. New groups, like the six country Gulf Cooperation
Council which includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have joined the
fight to stop criminals from exploiting international financial systems.
These developments have better prepared the world to identify and freeze ter-
rorist assets, trace connections from terrorist cells to those directing their activities,
deny access to terrorist-affiliated businesses and foundations, and provide valuable
evidence of the financing of terrorist acts.
Much more needs to be done. The Administration established a new interagency
task force focused exclusively on rooting out terrorist assets and by expanding the
countrys official list of known terrorists and terrorist-affiliated businesses and foun-
dations. That is a good step. Congress needs to take the next step by strengthening
and modernizing our outdated and inadequate anti-money laundering laws. Here
are a few key areas where change is needed.
First, Congress needs to stop unscrupulous individuals and foreign banks from
gaining entry to the U.S. banking system through U.S. correspondent accounts. As
I said earlier, my bill would require U.S. banks to exercise enhanced due diligence
when opening accounts for offshore banks, banks in jurisdictions with poor anti-
money laundering controls, or for foreign persons with $1 million or more in a pri-
vate bank account and it would outright prohibit U.S. banks from opening
correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks.
Second, Congress needs to eliminate a forfeiture loophole in U.S. law that now
makes its almost impossible for U.S. law enforcement to freeze suspect funds in U.S.
correspondent accounts opened for foreign banks. Under current law, in order for
law enforcement to seize the funds of a criminal with money in a U.S. correspondent
account, the law enforcement agency has to prove that the foreign bank with the
correspondent account was involved in the criminal activity. That is because the
money in the correspondent account is treated as the foreign banks money and not
69
the money of the foreign banks depositors. My bill would change the law to treat
money that is attributable to an individual depositor but held in a U.S. cor-
respondent account as the depositors money and make it subject to the same civil
forfeiture rules that apply to depositors funds in other U.S. bank accounts.
Third, we need to make it easier for prosecutors to prosecute money laundering
cases. My bill would provide such basic improvements as simpler pleading require-
ments, clear long-arm jurisdiction over foreign money launderers acting inside the
United States, easier ways to serve legal papers on foreign banks with U.S. ac-
counts, and the assistance of court-appointed Federal receivers to find money laun-
dering assets hidden at home or abroad.
Fourth, we need to make bulk cash smuggling a crime. There is currently no stat-
utory basis for seizing bulk cash from a terrorist transporting it over our borders
or on U.S. roads or common carriers, even though seizing cash from terrorists could
go a long way to disrupting their operations. Legislation introduced by Congress-
woman Roukema addresses this issue, and it deserves our support and enactment
into law.
Fifth, we need to increase the number of financial institutions required to report
suspicious activity when they see it, particularly stock brokers. Media reports indi-
cate that terrorists may have used stock trades to profit from the September 11
attack. Suspicious activity reports provide vital leads and evidence for law enforce-
ment, and we are the only G7 country that does not require all of our brokerage
firms to file them right now. Past Administrations have promised but failed to issue
regulations requiring these reports, in part due to lobbying by financial institutions
that do not want to have to spend the time and resources to fill out the paperwork.
Well, times have changed and shown all too clearly the high cost of not reporting
suspicious activity. The President ought to require these reports by January 1, 2002.
If he does not, Congress should.
Sixth, we need to give the Treasury Secretary greater flexibility to take measures
against foreign banks and foreign countries believed to be involved in money laun-
dering. Right now, we have only two weaponsblocking a banks assets or issuing
a voluntary advisory urging U.S. banks not to do business with the suspect country
or institution. We need more tools, such as options for requiring specific know-your-
customer or reporting requirements, as set out in S. 398 introduced by my friends
Senator Kerry, Senator Grassley, and others.
New anti-money laundering legislation is an essential companion to the Executive
Order issued by the President earlier this week. The Executive Order is an emer-
gency measure; these bills go beyond emergency measures to prevent terrorists and
other criminals from gaining entry to the U.S. banking system in the first place.
U.S. banks would be barred from opening correspondent accounts for shell banks,
and they would be required to do a lot more homework on foreign banks before let-
ting them into the United States. Had our legislation been in place earlier, it is pos-
sible the Shamal bank would never have obtained a correspondent account in the
United States.
Finally, let us not forget the need to galvanize the international community to join
us in our efforts to chase down terrorist assets and deny terrorists access to inter-
national financial networks. We need to convince other countries to enact the same
anti-money laundering controls we are talking about today.
The conclusion is clear: stronger laws are critical if we are to stop terrorists and
other criminals from benefitting from the safety, soundness, efficiency, and profit-
ability of the U.S. banking system. We must deny terrorists access to our banks,
to our credit cards, to our stock brokers, and to all of the other modem financial
tools we have developed to move money around the world.
I ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record a letter from the De-
partment of Justice supporting my bill, letters of support from the Drug Enforce-
ment Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Attorney Generals for
the States of Michigan, Arizona, and Massachusetts, and other materials relevant
to my testimony.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this
important hearing on efforts to control the scourge of money laundering. I would
also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Senator Charles
Grassley, who has been working with me to enact anti-money laundering legislation
and Senator Carl Levin who, as Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Sub-
70
committee on Investigations, has held a series of important hearings which have
clearly shown the need to update our money laundering laws.
On September 11, the tragic and dastardly attack on the United States could not
have taken place without the movement of the terrorists assets through the global
financial system. These terrible events underscore the need for a concerted anti-
terrorism offensive, both internationally and domestically.
Osama bin Ladens terrorist network, known as Al Qaeda, which is believed to
be responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, has for
years obtained funding by taking advantage of an open system of international fi-
nancial transactions. With the help of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda re-
ceives funding through the sale of opium. They have stolen or diverted money in-
tended to assist refugees or religious organizations. They have raised money from
wealthy Islamic donors. Finally, Osama Bin Laden himself has not only a substan-
tial personal fortune but either owns or controls a vast number of businesses and
investments in Saudi Arabia and around the world.
In many cases, the funds that fuel Al Qaeda are moved through an underground
system of brokers built on trust, called Hawala, which allow enormous amounts of
cash to be moved without any paper trail. Obviously, this method of moving money
cannot be controlled by international restrictions. However, the profits that the Al
Qaeda receives from the sale of opium do move through the existing international
financial systems.
Because this terrorist network obtains funding through a variety of sources, we
must develop, in conjunction with our allies, a variety of different initiatives to stop
the flow of funds to the Al Qaeda. The United States is currently administering
sanctions against the Taliban regime for their part in the drug trade. However,
these sanctions have proven inadequate to stop the illegal activities of the Al Qaeda.
If we are to lead the world in the fight against terror, we must ensure that our
own laws are worthy of the difficult task ahead. I strongly support the Bush Admin-
istrations decision to freeze the financial assets of 27 entities associated with ter-
rorism and I support attempts to enhance the use of Federal criminal and civil asset
forfeiture laws. However, if we are to win this war on terrorism, there is more that
we need to do. This work has already begun in the European Union, where just last
week, they approved stronger measures against money laundering.
Today, too many nationssome small, remote islandshave laws that provide for
excessive bank secrecy, anonymous company incorporation, economic citizenship,
and other provisions that directly conflict with well-established international anti-
money laundering standards. These nations have become money laundering havens
for international criminal organizations like the Al Qaeda.
The United States and the European Union have made great strides in the fight
against money laundering over the past 12 years. The Financial Action Task Force
(FATF), an intergovernmental body, was established at the urging of the United
States and President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to develop and promote policies to
combat financial crime. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD) began a new crackdown on tax havens by targeting 36 jurisdictions
which it said participate in unfair tax competition and undermine other nations tax
bases. The OECD approach does not punish countries just for having low tax rates,
instead, it looks for tax systems that have a lack of transparency, a lack of effective
exchange of information, and those countries that have different tax rules for for-
eign customers than for its own citizens. The United States and the European
Union have been working together to force jurisdictions that fall short of inter-
national standards to update and improve their anti-money laundering laws and to
lift the veil of secrecy around tax havens by threatening to limit their access to our
financial systems.
Today, the FATF reports that 19 jurisdictionsincluding Lebanon, Hungary, Ni-
geria, Russia, and the Philippineshave failed to take adequate measures to com-
bat international money laundering. Since a report naming many of these countries
was released last year, many of these countries have already begun to update their
anti-money laundering laws.
However, I am concerned that the money laundering strategy recently released
by the Bush Administration begins to step away from the bilateral efforts that have
proven successful in fighting financial crime and contradict the tough stance rightly
taken by President George W. Bush in his recent Executive Order. The new strat-
egy, combined with efforts previously announced by Treasury Secretary ONeill re-
lated to tax havens, seems to support a more unilateral approach toward fighting
financial crimes instead of the successful multilateral approach adopted by the
OECD and the FATF. I believe this will make it more difficult to track and freeze
the assets of international terrorists like bin Laden and expand upon the recent
progress we have achieved. I also believe that this is the wrong time to pull back
71
our efforts to stop money laundering into the United States by increasing the
amounts necessary to require a Suspicious Activity Report issued by a financial in-
stitution.
It is now time for the United States to do its part to stop international money
laundering and stop international criminals from laundering the proceeds of their
crimes into the U.S. financial system.
First, I believe the Bush Administration should call an emergency meeting of the
G7 nations and the Financial Action Task Force to implement a more vigorous
international strategy to cut off the blood money that these international criminal
networks use.
Second, the United States should immediately peruse bilateral and multilateral
sanctions against any country that has, through neglect or design, permitted its fi-
nancial systems to be used by bin Laden or other terrorist groups.
Third, the Congress should pass the International Counter-Money Laundering
and Foreign Anti-Corruption Act of 2001, which I introduced along with Senators
Grassley, Sarbanes, Levin, and Rockefeller. During the 106th Congress, the House
Banking Committee passed this bill with a bipartisan 331 vote. The bill will give
the Secretary of the Treasury the tools necessary to crack down on international
money laundering havens and protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system. The
bill provides for actions that will be graduated, discretionary, and targeted, in order
to focus actions on international transactions involving criminal proceeds, while al-
lowing legitimate international commerce to continue to flow unimpeded.
I believe that the Congress should enact this legislation this year to help stop the
flow of assets and money that fund bin Laden and other terrorist groups. I look for-
ward to working with the Members of this Committee on this important issue.
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. GRASSLEY

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in thanking you for holding this important
hearing and the opportunity you have afforded us of talking on the matter. As you
know, because of my work on trying to stop international drug trafficking, I have
worked for many years on going after their money. Money is one of the most critical
elements in going after the drug thugs. I have joined with Senator Levin and Sen-
ator Kerry in sponsoring legislation that is timely and necessary. Our focus needs
to be not only on the specific assets of terrorists, but also, on identifying their meth-
ods and eliminating their sources of funding.
After the events 2 weeks ago, we now face another group of thugs that rely on
being able to launder illegal proceeds to pay for their activities. For them, money,
access to it, and to the mechanisms for placing it in the legitimate economy are the
equivalent of their war industries. To strike at them, we must strike at their ability
to wage war against us. That reality has added increased importance to what we
are here today to talk about. Two weeks ago, passing the bills before the Committee
today was, in my view, important. Today, passing them is imperative.
Let me add that these bills are not new. The elements in them have received care-
ful consideration over the last several years. They are not full of hastily assembled
items. They contain needed changes and add important tools to our arsenal. In the
days and weeks ahead we are going to have to examine further things we need to
do. I hope that we do that wisely. I trust that we will pay attention to ensuring
that we preserve important liberties while denying our enemies the means to hurt
us further. We also need to work with the banking and the financial services indus-
try to ensure that we act smart, as well as quickly down the road. That they are
on board with what we need to do. This is not a burden that government, here or
elsewhere, can carry alone. We need to combine all our strengths and capabilities.
But circumstances demand meaningful action now, and these bills give use impor-
tant tools for our tool kit.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN J. LAFALCE

A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
The campaign to prevent future terrorist acts against our Nation will not be suc-
cessful unless we cut off the funds that fuel terrorism. The horrendous attacks of
September 11 could not have taken place without the movement of the terrorists
72
assets through the global financial system. The events of last week underscore the
need for a concerted anti-money laundering offensive, both internationally and do-
mestically. The hearing that the Senate Banking Committee is holding today would
be important, if the tragic events of September 11 had never occurred. But, our Na-
tional crisis brings a new sense of urgency to Congress consideration of money laun-
dering issues and the National Money Laundering Strategy.
I have been for many years concerned that our counter-money laundering laws
are not sufficiently nimble to permit the United States law enforcement community
to respond to the malicious inventiveness of a fast-moving and remarkably adapt-
able class of criminals and murderous terrorists. I believe that our laws need to be
changed to provide more flexibility for the law enforcement community, including
the Treasury, to combat money laundering, and provide meaningful criminal pen-
alties for all significant money laundering violations.
Before I turn to a discussion of the Administrations new money laundering strat-
egy and new legislation, I want to say that I am encouraged by the actions that
the Administration has taken to trace the financial finger prints of bin Laden, his
Al Qaeda terrorist network, and the entities that support them.
First, the Department of the Treasury announced the creation of an interagency
team dedicated to the disruption of terrorist fund raising and the proposed creation
of a Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center within the Treasury. Second, on Mon-
day, the President issued an Executive Order that identified international terrorist
groups, individuals, and their operatives connected to the attack and froze the as-
sets of these groups in the United States. The order expands on a previous order
of President Clintons. The new order identifies three charities and one business
which supply financial support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It also permits the Sec-
retary of the Treasury to block any noncooperating foreign financial institution from
doing business with U.S. financial institutions and other U.S. firms. This will help
the U.S. Government uproot the financial underpinnings of a network that would
seek to do grave harm to the United States and its citizens. The Bush Administra-
tion appears to be off to a very sound start in its efforts to cut off bin Laden from
his funds.
The National Money Laundering Strategy was developed before the September 11
attack, and I believe that parts of it should be reevaluated in light of those tragic
events and what our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have learned about
the funding of the attack.
While the Strategy sets out strong enforcement goals, including calling for more
vigorous enforcement of asset forfeiture statutes in connection with money laun-
dering offenses, the focus of some of the regulatory goals in the Strategy seems
somewhat inconsistent with the strong world leadership position that the United
States has taken over the past decade in raising international money laundering
standards. I am particularly concerned that the Strategy calls for a cost benefit
analysis of compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and a survey of financial institu-
tions for the purposes of possibly expanding the types of currency transactions that
are exempt from current Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements.
I am concerned these activities could result in a relaxation of current BSA report-
ing requirements and raise questions about our own resolve in the fight against
international money laundering. I want to work cooperatively with the Administra-
tion to develop a new strategy that addresses the concerns that I have raised.
There are indications that the Administration has begun to rethink the Strategy.
I was pleased that Under Secretary Gurule announced that Treasury has scrapped
its plan to delay implementation of regulations requiring money service businesses
(for example, money transmitters) to register with the Treasury and to file sus-
picious activity reports with the Treasury. I believe that these regulations will over
time give our law enforcement and intelligence agency important investigative and
prosecutorial tools that are needed to control the Halawa system of international
money exchange. Many believe the Halawa system to be one of primary channels
for the global funding of terrorist activities, including the activities of Al Qaeda.
If we are to lead the worldwide effort to cut off bin Laden and other terrorist
groups from the funds needed to carry out their deadly missions, we must ensure
that our own laws are adequate for the difficult task at hand. Several Members in
the House and Senate have introduced money laundering legislation that deserve
serious consideration not only as a part of our response to acts of terrorism, but also
as a part of our overall money laundering strategy.
I, along with Senator Kerry, have introduced legislation that strengthens the ar-
senal of the Government in the fight against money laundering. Senator Sarbanes,
Senator Levin, Senator Grassley, and other Senate colleagues are cosponsors of the
legislation. Our bill, the International Counter-Money Laundering Act of 2001, pro-
vides the Treasury Secretary with the authority and discretion to address a specific
73
money laundering problem with precisionwhich cannot be done under current law.
This legislation would give the United States increased leverage in dealing with for-
eign jurisdictions and foreign financial institutions that aid drug kingpins, money
launderers, and terrorists.
The existing laws against bulk cash smuggling are inadequate. Currently, the
couriers of illicit cash are subject to only minimal jail sentences for failing to file
currency reports. I am an original cosponsor of legislation that will make smuggling
currency for unlawful purposes a serious criminal offense under Federal law.
Given the events of September 11, I believe that the Administration will want to
move quickly to acquire the necessary legislative authority to combat international
terrorism and international money laundering. I look forward to working coopera-
tively with the Administration in the development of sound and effective anti-money
laundering legislation.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. LEACH

A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
As you know, a money laundering bill was considered by the House Banking Com-
mittee during the last Congress. The approach taken in that bill was one where,
with Mr. LaFalce, I put forth an initial model and requested the Treasury and Jus-
tice Departments to review the legislations content. We proceeded to mark-up using
the revised comments of the Administration as base text and the legislation passed
with broad Committee support.
Law enforcement was in strong support of the legislation but parts of the financial
community objected to the degree of regulatory intrusion. Following the money is
an effective law enforcement tool to track criminals after a crime has been com-
mitted. It also serves as a retardant to the capacities of wrongdoers to collect and
distribute resources while preparing for a crime. While there is a case that indi-
vidual and institutional freedoms are fractionally restrained by recordkeeping meas-
ures of this nature, there is always a pendulum that swings in our society between
freedom and order. When order is challenged, it is sometimes necessary to prudently
restrain some freedom of action.
Enforcement of money laundering laws to diminish threats of terrorism and
narcotrafficking would seem a relatively modest inconvenience relative to the
human costs wreaked on society by international thugs.
To give a free ride to money launderers not only makes justice more difficult to
obtain, but it also denies a credible approach to address one of the causes of ter-
rorism: the decadence and corruption that exists in certain parts of the world where
extreme inequities in wealth accentuate social divisions. While money laundering
may not in itself seem like a great crime, the underlying manner in which resources
are marshaled can threaten international order and the freedoms that order is
meant to protect.
Particularly in circumstances where civilized values are challenged by terrorist
acts, the U.S. Government has an obligation to question the access given to our fi-
nancial system by outlaw entities and make it very clear that funds from abroad
and possibly fundraising at home that supports terrorism, or for that matter
narcotrafficking or government corruption, ought to be monitored and, where legally
appropriate, confiscated.
In the last Congress, some large banks had an understandable angst about the
regulatory burdens related to the recordkeeping necessary to implement money
laundering statutes. Ironically, the people that opposed this approach the most yes-
terday, need protection the most today. The two American institutions most vulner-
able to terrorism around the world are our diplomatic and financial outposts. For
banks to refuse to join the war on terrorism and narcotrafficking is not only to
weaken the fabric of civilized society, but also it is to put in jeopardy the lives of
people who are most symbolically intertwined with democratic, market-oriented val-
ues that are globalist in nature.
Finally, I would be remise not to point out that in the last Congress the House
Banking Committee passed out a second bill which I initiated that also did not be-
come law, one that restrains Internet gambling. The issue of gambling and money
laundering are interrelatedalbeit, tangentiallybecause Internet gambling not
only weakens our economy, but also serves as a haven for money laundering activi-
ties. I would hope that the Senate and House Committees of jurisdiction would take
renewed interest in both of these bills this year.
74
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGE ROUKEMA
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before this
Committee this morning. I deeply appreciate the courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, for years I have been deeply concerned that we have not done
enough to dry up the lifeblood of the illegal drug tradefree flowing cash. Now as
our Nation struggles to recover from the vicious and unprovoked attack on our
homeland on September 11, our focus has expanded to include terrorism. As our in-
vestigators work to follow the money to trace financial transactions back to their
source it is becoming more and more clear that free flowing cash is also critically
important to terrorists as they plan, organize, and execute their murderous plots.
Over the years, I have been a strong advocate of better enforcement and stronger
laws that will provide law enforcement the tools needed to fight drug dealers, money
launders, and terrorists. In the wake of last weeks terrorist attacks, this has never
been more important.
In the 106th Congress, I worked closely with the Department of Justice and Con-
gressman Bill McCollum who was then a Member of the House Judiciary Committee
to craft a comprehensive money laundering proposal to address many of the prob-
lems our law enforcement officials currently face. It is my understanding that much
of that draft will be included in the legislation that the Administration will soon
send to Congress for its immediate attention.
While I strongly support passage of comprehensive money laundering strategy
and will continue to work with this Administration to that end. Today, I am here
to discuss legislation that I introduced on September 20, H.R. 2922, the Bulk Cash
Smuggling Act of 2001. This bill is similar to ones I introduced in both the 105th
and 106th Congresses and is strongly supported by the Department of Justice. This
legislation takes aim at criminal activities that support terrorists and drug dealers
by making currency smuggling a criminal offense.
The transport of large sums of cash in, out, and through the United States is a
major problem which is growing everyday. We call this bulk cash smuggling. As the
Federal banking regulators and law enforcement officials have made money laun-
dering through insured depository institutions more difficult, money launderers
have apparently resorted to the smuggling of large amounts of U.S. cash and cur-
rency over the border. It has been reported that over $30 billion a year is smuggled
in, out, and through the United States each year by drug dealers, organized crime,
and terrorist organizations. This money moves by planes, trains, automobiles, ships,
and even by mail.
My colleagues should note that law enforcement authorities suspect that one tac-
tic used by terrorist organizations to avoid having their funds detected in the inter-
national financial system is to move cash by courier or though bulk shipments. This
may explain how so many of the individuals involved in the September 11 attacks
were able to live and train in our country for extended periods of time while leaving
few identifiable footprints in the banking system.
The existing laws governing bulk cash smuggling are totally inadequate. Pres-
ently, the only law enforcement weapon against bulk cash smuggling is Section 5316
of Title 31, U.S. Code. This statute makes it an offense to transport more than
$10,000 in currency or monetary instruments into, or out of, the United States with-
out filing a form with the U.S. Customs Service. Section 5316 has been rendered
largely ineffective as a law enforcement tool by a 1998 Supreme Court decision,
United States v. Bajakajian, in which the Court held that violations of Section 5316
constitute mere reporting violations, and do not warrant the confiscation of bulk
casheven if the smuggler has taken elaborate steps to conceal the money from
Customs inspectors.
H.R. 2922 will give law enforcement authorities a critical tool in disrupting the
channels used by terrorists to finance their activities in the United States. The bill
would make it a Federal crime to smuggle cash or currency in excess of $10,000 into
or out of the United States. Violations of the law could result in the forfeiture of
the terrorists cash or currency as well as up to 5 years in prisonan individual
would be provided the opportunity to show that the money came from a legitimate
source in which case there may be little or no forfeiture whatsoever.
Interstate currency couriers are part of the problem. One of the bills key provi-
sions would make it a crime to transport more than $10,000 in criminal proceeds
in interstate commerce, thereby making it more difficult for terrorists to move cash
within the United States once they have succeeded in getting it into the country.
This measure takes on particular relevance in light of press reports that suspected
bin Laden operatives taken into custody since the September 11 attacks have been
found with large sums of cash in their possession. By making bulk cash smuggling
75
a crimewhether it is conducted within the United States or across our borders
we will give law enforcement an effective weapon for separating the terrorists from
the funds they need to support their operations in this country.
As Chairwoman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee in the last Congress,
I presided over numerous hearings on the Governments anti-money laundering
enforcement efforts, including a field hearing in Newark in May of last year that
focused particular attention on the bulk cash smuggling problem. Time and again
in those hearings, I heard from Federal and State law enforcement agents and pros-
ecutors that the biggest loophole in the current statutory scheme for combating
money laundering is the one that allows criminal organizations to transport the pro-
ceeds of their illegal activities without fear of meaningful criminal sanctions.
For this reason, I was very pleased that several weeks before the horrific events
of September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft gave a speech in which he identified
the criminalization of bulk cash smuggling as one of the Administrations highest
legislative priorities in combating money laundering.
Law enforcement officials have said for years that cutting off the money is one
of the most effective ways of combating organized crime. Seizing bulk cash ship-
ments will deprive terrorists of at least some of the resources they need to carry
out their hideous acts. Choking off the financial lifeblood of terrorists will of course
take more than any one specific legislative proposal or law enforcement initiative.
It will require a comprehensive approach.
Now I have heard some naysayers complain that some of the provisions in my leg-
islation may cast a net so wide as to ensnarl innocent Americans. The question has
been asked, what about the innocent American who happens to be legally trans-
porting large sums of cash or is discovered carrying his lifesaving around in the
trunk of his car?
My answer is simpleeach and every day our dedicated and alert law enforce-
ment officials encounter situations that require their careful investigation. Let us
give them the tools they need to conduct those investigations and protect Americans
from terrorists and drug dealers.
We need comprehensive reforms to our money laundering laws, and I whole-
heartedly support the Administrations efforts to enact those reforms. The provisions
included in H.R. 2922 are only part of the solution, but they represent straight for-
ward common sense reforms of our money laundering laws that we can enact right
now. For the record, I am attaching a copy of my legislationH.R. 2922and a sec-
tion by section outlining the provisions of the bill. In addition I would be happy to
provide the Committee and individual Senators with the Bulk Cash Hearing tran-
script from my May 2000 hearing at which the Department of Justice, Treasury,
and the Customs Department testified in favor of this legislation.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before this Committee
and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol to
see to it that this important legislation gets signed into law before we leave here
this year.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIMMY GURULE

UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Chairman Sarbanes, Senator Gramm, and distinguished Members of the Com-
mittee, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the Treasury Departments
ongoing commitment to the fight against money laundering. I appear before you
today more convinced than ever of the importance and necessity of a comprehensive
money laundering strategy. I know you feel the same way and I look forward to
sharing with you some of the key aspects of President Bushs plan to combat domes-
tic and international money laundering.
Let me begin by saying that criminal acts of violence, such as the horrific terrorist
attacks of September 11, need more than just cunning leadership and dedicated fol-
lowers to be successful. Such undertakings also require extensive financial funding
as well. Let me be clearthe Treasury Department is committed to identifying the
sources of funding used to underwrite attacks of this nature and we will take what-
ever action is necessary to shut them down. Although the complexities of money
laundering have long been associated with concealing the true nature of proceeds
generated from the drug cartels, the tragedies of September 11 also underscore the
need for aggressive and vigilant anti-money laundering efforts which target the
movement of funds into this country for the purpose of criminal activityespecially
76
funds earmarked for terror. In response to this need, the implementation of the
2001 Money Laundering Strategy includes several specific steps to dismantle and
disrupt the financing of terrorist activities.
Recent Steps
As Secretary ONeill has stated publicly, the Treasury Departments top priority
is to dismantle the financial infrastructure of the terrorist groups in question. To
that end, we will deploy all of our resources to trace and block the funds of those
who engage in these heinous acts of murder, as well as those who harbor them and
fund them. Two days ago, President Bush signed a new Executive Order under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) blocking the assets of, and
transactions with, terrorist organizations and certain charitable, humanitarian, and
business organizations that finance or support terrorism. To fulfill President Bushs
pledge to eliminate safe havens for those who perpetrate acts of terror, we will use
every tool at our disposal to pursue and eliminate terrorist fundraising networks.
International Cooperation
Because terrorism is global in nature, international cooperation must be an essen-
tial component of any enforcement strategy if it is to be successful. The Treasury
Department has already taken steps to capitalize on the spirit of international co-
operation and is in the process of working diligently with our counterparts abroad
to ensure that accounts under their jurisdiction linked to terrorist organizations will
be frozen.
Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center
Another important step that Treasury has taken in light of the September 11 at-
tacks, was to get our new interagency team, the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking
Center (FTAT) up and running. FTAT is dedicated to identifying the financial infra-
structure of terrorist organizations worldwide and to curtail their ability to move
money through the international banking system. FTAT represents a preventative,
proactive, and strategic approach to using financial data to target and curb terrorist
financing worldwide. This team will ultimately be transformed into a permanent
Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in the Treasury Departments Office of For-
eign Asset Control (OFAC). This is an extraordinary effort that really illustrates the
Treasury Departments creativity in developing new ways to combat terrorism.
In addition, agents and analysts from Treasurys law enforcement bureausthe
U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, Internal Revenue ServiceCriminal In-
vestigation, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, as well as analysts from
the intelligence community will be coordinating efforts, and Treasury law enforce-
ment bureaus will continue to coordinate closely with the Department of Justice and
Federal Bureau of Investigation on these matters.
These efforts will act in concert with the 2001 National Money Laundering Strat-
egy, which calls for unprecedented levels of intraagency, interagency, and inter-
national coordination and cooperation to combat money laundering and related
financial crime. With respect to the Strategy, I want to take a few minutes to out-
line for the Committee some of the key components of the Administrations plan.
The 2001 Money Laundering Strategy
The 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy represents the combined input
and approval of more than 20 Federal agencies, bureaus, and offices. It is a com-
prehensive plan designed to disrupt and to dismantle major money laundering
enterprises and prosecute the professional money launderers through aggressive en-
forcement, measured accountability, preventative efforts, and enhanced intraagency,
interagency, and international coordination. By major enterprise, I mean complex,
large-scale, large-volume, transnational money laundering schemes perpetrated by
professional money launderers. Our policy should focus and will focus on pursuing
terrorist funds and these kinds of high-impact and high-profile investigations.
Aggressive Enforcement
The first goal of the 2001 Strategy is to focus law enforcements efforts on the
prosecution of major money laundering systems and terrorist groups moving funds
into this country for the sole purpose of conducting criminal activity and wreaking
havoc in our society. We recognize that we must concentrate our resources in high-
risk areas and target major money laundering organizations. To focus our limited
Federal resources, the Strategy calls for the organization, supervision, and training
of specialized money laundering task forces located in High Risk Money Laundering
and Related Financial Crimes Areas (HIFCAs). In a departure from precedent, the
HIFCAs will function primarily in an operational capacity. They will be tasked with
coordinating the law enforcement and regulatory assets against corrupt entities en-
77
gaging in money laundering activities. I am hopeful that the two newest HIFCAs,
Chicago and San Francisco, as well as the existing Los Angeles HIFCA, can com-
plement ongoing enforcement efforts to infiltrate and isolate the terrorist financial
networks. HIFCA Task Forces will be jointly supervised by the Departments of
Treasury and Justice and will be composed of all relevant Federal, State, and local
agencies, and will serve as the model of our anti-money laundering efforts.
One aspect of the 2001 Strategy that I am particularly proud of is establishment
of an advanced money laundering training program. I believe that such a program
is imperative to providing our agents and inspectors with the proper investigative
tools to combat the complex and ever-changing money laundering schemes of the
criminals. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and the Depart-
ment of Justices Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section will be spear-
heading this effort to train our teams to investigate sophisticated money laundering
schemes.
An aggressive anti-money laundering attack requires that law enforcement utilize
all available statutory authorities to dismantle large-scale criminal enterprises. The
2001 Strategy mandates an emphasis on Federal asset forfeiture laws in conjunction
with money laundering investigations and prosecutions to strip criminals of their ill-
gotten gains and dismantle criminal organizations by attacking their financial base.
We will also continue our ongoing efforts to uncover the sophisticated schemes de-
vised by professional criminal enterprises and seek to disrupt the financial oper-
ations of these illicit organizations. For example, we will continue to partner with
the private sector and our international colleagues to combat the Black Market Peso
Exchange, the largest trade-based money laundering system in the Western Hemi-
sphere. I would especially like to note the contributions that the governments of
Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, and Aruba have made to this effort.
Measured Accountability
Another concept unique to this years Strategy is the idea of measured account-
ability. To raise our standards of performance, we must measure the effectiveness
of our efforts. For too long, Federal law enforcement has not been subject to account-
ability through measured evaluation. Secretary Paul H. ONeill, in particular, is
dedicated to changing business as usual. Therefore, we will seek to create and im-
plement a uniform system that measures the Governments anti-money laundering
results. Emphasis will be placed on measured results, rather than the level of law
enforcement activity.
We will establish a system to collect reliable information that will provide law en-
forcement with an accurate picture of its anti-money laundering programs. Once we
institutionalize these databases, we can begin to meaningfully evaluate the success
of our approaches. Our measurement methods will include an examination of:
quantitative factors, such as the number of money laundering investigations, pros-
ecutions, and convictions, which will provide a numerical snapshot of our efforts
from year to year;
qualitative factorseach investigation, prosecution, or conviction will be assigned
a weighted value to mirror the cases complexity, importance, and scope of impact;
forfeiture and seizure data related to money laundering activity that will rep-
resent a monetary value of our efforts; and
the criminal marketplace price of laundering money that will help determine
whether our anti-money laundering efforts are making it more expensive and
more difficult for criminals to launder their illicit proceeds.
We will ensure accountability and raise our standards of performance, expecta-
tion, and success. Measured evaluation will identify money laundering hot spots,
indicate areas where law enforcement must enhance or prioritize its investigations
and prosecutions, and allow law enforcement to articulate measurable goals.
Preventative Efforts
A comprehensive money laundering strategy must also include an effective regu-
latory regime that denies money launderers easy access to the financial sector. The
2001 Strategy continues previous efforts to expand and implement proposed sus-
picious activity reporting requirements to financial institutions that are particularly
vulnerable to money laundering activity. We will also seek to establish a true part-
nership with the private sector to create a vigorous anti-money laundering regime
and to eliminate vulnerabilities that money launderers seek to exploit. Treasury will
encourage the private sector to develop and implement a rigorous set of best prac-
tices and procedures, thus enabling the industry to aid in the protection of the in-
tegrity of the U.S. financial system.
Our principal focus will be to ensure that law enforcement fully utilizes reported
information. To this end, law enforcement must seek to receive only those reports
78
that have law enforcement value. In 2000, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Net-
work (FinCEN) received and processed 12,000,000 Currency Transaction Reports
(CTRs), 30 percent of which had no meaningful law enforcement value and would
not have been filed if existing reporting exemptions had been used. The 2001 Strat-
egy calls on law enforcement to work with the private sector to ensure fuller use
of the regulatory reporting exemptions and seeks to expand the exemptions to other
low-risk transactions, if appropriate.
Effective utilization also requires that law enforcement evaluate the usefulness of
reported currency transactions. The Strategy will require law enforcement agencies
that use CTR or Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) information to provide operational
feedback to FinCEN. In turn, FinCEN will use the feedback to evaluate or change
its database programs to fit the needs of law enforcement.
We will also continue our work to level the playing field between banks and
nonbank financial institutions. Currently, only those institutions that come under
the jurisdiction of the Federal bank supervisory agencies are required to file SARs.
I am in the process of working with my staff and the relevant FinCEN personnel
to reevaluate the proposed dates regarding the implementation of the SAR require-
ments on money services businesses (MSBs). It is the position of the Treasury De-
partment that in light of the horrific events of September 11 that these regulations
need to be put into place as soon as prudently possible. We cannot afford to permit
terrorists the luxury of moving funds through any avenue of our financial system
undetected.
Enhanced Coordination
Last and perhaps most importantly, 2001 Strategy stresses the importance of Fed-
eral, State, local, and international coordination by creating structured, interagency,
operational task forces that provide supervision and accountability. In addition,
there will be new cooperation-based incentives.
As I mentioned earlier, the HIFCA Task Forces will be the driving force that
unites Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. To ensure coordination,
HIFCA Task Forces will prepare a detailed action plan and regularly brief Treasury
and Justice officials on the progress of major money laundering investigations as
well as the involvement of State and local law enforcement agencies in the HIFCAs.
Similarly, the Department of the Treasury will conduct evaluations of existing Fi-
nancial Crime-Free Communities Support Program (CFIC) grant recipients to en-
sure local officials are including HIFCA Task Forces in their efforts. Further, the
Strategy strongly encourages U.S. attorneys in each judicial district to create SAR
Review Teams, which will incorporate State and local officials whenever possible.
Money laundering is a problem of global dimensions that requires concerted and
cooperative action on the part of a broad range of institutions. At the international
level, the Strategy seeks to remove all barriers that inhibit international coopera-
tion. Appropriate officials from the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury will
review key existing extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties and recommend
that coverage of money laundering offenses be considered an important objective in
assessing future treaty negotiations. The Strategy will mandate increased use of the
international asset-sharing program, which will provide incentive for international
cooperation.
Our participation within the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) also provides a
unique opportunity for us to work internationally with other member countries to
require that countries in good standing with FATF have rules or regulations in
place to address the issue of terrorist fundraising within their borders. The United
States will push for FATF to take action to address these new issues of concern.
Because money laundering has the potential to increase risks to the global finan-
cial system, Treasury and the other G7 nations have worked extensively with the
International Financial Institutions (IFIs), and, as a result, the IFIs have agreed
to take on an enhanced role in the global fight against money laundering. The
United States will coordinate with G7 and FATF members to ensure that the IMF
and World Bank incorporate the Forty Recommendations into their operational
work and promote the Forty Recommendations as the international standard for
combating money laundering consistent with the mission and responsibilities of the
IFIs. The United States, its G7 partners, and other FATF members are urging the
IFIs to institute a separate Report on Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC)
module on money laundering. Such a module would provide a comprehensive and
articulated assessment of the status and performance of a countrys anti-money
laundering regime, and we anticipate having the IFIs full cooperation in this effort.
79
Conclusion
In closing, I leave you today with my personal assurance that during my tenure
as Under Secretary (Enforcement), the Department of Treasury will continue to ag-
gressively pursue money launderers with every tool that we have at our disposal.
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Ground Zero at what remains of the World
Trade Center and see the devastation firsthand. It was a sight I will never forget
and I am here today to make sure that this Committee and the United States Con-
gress know that we will continue to pursue terrorist fundraising networks and other
money laundering operations diligently and with passion.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Chairman Sarbanes, Senator Gramm, and distinguished Members of the Com-
mittee, I am pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the ever-in-
creasingly important issue of money laundering and the Bush Administrations 2001
National Money Laundering Strategy.
As I understand it, todays hearing was originally scheduled for September 12.
Any testimony prepared for that day was rendered obsolete by the events of Sep-
tember 11. Tuesday, September 11 marked a turning point in this countrys fight
against terrorism and all other kinds of unlawful activity. President Bush has an-
nounced that we will meet that unspeakable attack on democracy with a full com-
mitment of resources and with a firm resolve to rid the world of terrorism. As the
President so eloquently stated, Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring
justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
We in law enforcement must do everything within our powers to apprehend those
persons who have committed and seek to commit terrorist acts, and we must eradi-
cate the forces of terrorism in our country and around the world. As an initial step
toward accomplishing this national mission against terrorism, the Attorney General
has directed the creation of an Anti-Terrorism Task Force within each judicial dis-
trict to be made up of prosecutors from the U.S. Attorneys Office, members of the
Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, INS, DEA, Customs Service,
Marshals Service, Secret Service, IRS, and the ATF, as well as the primary State
and local police forces in that district. These task forces will be arms of the national
effort to coordinate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information and to
develop the investigative and prosecutive strategy for the country. As an integral
part of this national effort, the Department of Justice and FBI have established an
interagency Financial Review Group to coordinate the investigation of the financial
aspects surrounding the terrorist events of September 11 and beyond. All members
of this Committee recognize the importance of understanding financial components
of terrorist and criminal organizations. These financial links will be critical to the
larger criminal investigation, while also providing a trail to the sources of funding
for these heinous crimes. The importance of following the money, in this instance,
as well as in the investigation of all criminal enterprises, cannot be overstated.
The Members of this Committee are also well aware that money laundering con-
stitutes a threat to the safety of our communities, to the integrity of our financial
institutions, and to our national security. In order to address this serious threat,
we must apply and coordinate all the efforts and available resources of the Federal
Government, along with those of our State and local authorities, as well as our for-
eign counterparts, if we are to be effective in our campaign against domestic and
international money launderers. Money laundering techniques are innumerable, di-
verse, complex, subtle, and secret. The 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy
not only sets forth a plan to identify, disrupt, and dismantle major money laun-
dering organizations and the various financial systems they use, but also continues
previous efforts to establish and expand effective countermeasures to detect and
deter present and emergent money laundering techniques. Under Secretary Gurule
has detailed the principal provisions of the 2001 Strategy. I would like to focus on
an area of the Strategy in which we especially need the Congress helpupdating
the money laundering laws.
The Need for New Legislation
In his address to the Nation last Friday, President Bush stated:
We will direct every resource at our commandevery means of diplo-
macy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every
80
financial influence, and every necessary weapon of warto the destruction
and to the defeat of the global terror network.
However, as Attorney General Ashcroft stated in his remarks in Chicago on Au-
gust 7 to the Organized Crime Conference sponsored by the Chicago Police Depart-
ment, and as I and other representatives of the Department of Justice have stated
on several occasions in testimony before this and other Committees, we are fighting
with outdated weapons in the money laundering arena today. When the money
laundering laws were first enacted in 1986, they were designed to address what was
primarily a domestic problem. Since 1986, money laundering increasingly has be-
come a global problem, involving international financial transactions, the smuggling
of currency across borders, and the laundering in one country of the proceeds of
crimes committed in another country. Currency, monetary instruments, and elec-
tronic funds flow easily across international borders, allowing criminals in foreign
countries to hide their money in the United States, and allowing criminals in this
country to conceal their illicit funds in any one of hundreds of countries around the
world with scant concern that their activities will be detected by law enforcement.
International organized criminal groups based in Asia, Africa, Europe, and this
hemisphere have seized upon these opportunities for laundering of their assets.
These criminals look upon globalization as an invitation to vastly expand the size
and scope of their criminal activitieswhether these organized criminal groups en-
gage in narcotics trafficking, securities fraud, bank fraud, and other white collar
crimes, trafficking in persons, or terrorism. With their expanded power and reach,
international organized criminals seek to corrupt police and public officials in coun-
tries around the world to protect their criminal enterprises and enhance their
money-making opportunities. Foreign organized crime groups today threaten Ameri-
cans, their businesses, and their property, as these groups work to expand their in-
fluence into this country.
In this environment, law enforcement is challenged, and the criminals often hold
the advantage. Criminals are able to adapt to changing circumstances quickly. They
pay no heed to the requirements of laws and regulations and recognize no
sovereigns borders. Further, these criminal groups have learned to be adaptable
and innovative and as we succeed in a new enforcement effort or implement a new
regulatory regime, they quickly alter their methods and modes of operation to adapt
to the new circumstances.
The reality of international money laundering in this new century has caused
countries from Northern Europe to South Africa, and from here in the West to the
financial centers of the Far East, to look for ways to update their domestic laws to
address this threat to our security. Equally important, countries around the globe
are searching for ways to work together to address this problem jointly, irrespective
of our different legal systems, customs, and traditions. Criminal proceeds can be
moved from country-to-country in an instant. It is critical that our laws are brought
up to date, so that we may act effectively and cooperate fully with our partners in
law enforcement abroad. The United States should be the leader in this process, but
sadly we are falling behind. While our laws have remained mostly static for 14
years, other countries are moving ahead to criminalize international money laun-
dering and to take other steps to separate criminals from their criminal proceeds.
Legislative Initiatives
We are not suffering in this endeavor from the lack of ideas or proposals. The pro-
visions of our proposed Money Laundering Act of 2001 would go a long way toward
modernizing our money laundering laws by authorizing new and improved tools for
our law enforcement agents and prosecutors, and by increasing our ability to cooper-
ate with our international counterparts in tracing, freezing, and seizing criminal
funds in the United States.
In addition to the Departments legislative proposals, Members of Congress have
also recognized the need to update our money laundering laws. For example, Sen-
ators Levin, Grassley, DeWine, Kyl, Bill Nelson, and Chairman Sarbanes recently
introduced a money laundering bill, S. 1371. We look forward to working with you
as you consider these and related proposals.
I would like to highlight a few of the pending legislative proposals for the Com-
mittee that we believe would be particularly beneficial.
First, we must make it a crime to launder the proceeds of specified foreign crimes
in the United States. People who commit crimes abroad, and then hide that money
in the United States, are committing an offense that is at least as serious as the
one committed by our homegrown criminals who hide their money at the local bank.
The potential for terrorist organizations to finance their atrocities with money gen-
erated by committing crimes in other countries is obvious. (S. 1371, Sec. 3; Money
Laundering Act of 2001, Sec. 6).
81
Second, it is important that the Federal courts be given authority to restrain a
criminal defendants assets pending trial, so that he is not free to disburse his
money before he is convicted and ordered to turn it over to the Government. It is
meaningless to authorize the courts to enter post-conviction forfeiture judgments
as the current laws provideyet allow the criminal to send the money beyond the
reach of the court in the months before he is convicted. (DOJ Anti-Terrorism Act
of 2001, 406).
Third, the Federal courts should be given authority to enforce the orders of for-
eign courts relating to criminal proceeds in the United States. Federal law already
permits this in drug cases: a court in Virginia can enforce an order from a court
in London if it relates to drug money found in the U.S. (28 U.S.C. 2467). As we
speak, foreign countries are working to determine what assets of terrorist acts oc-
curring within their borders may have involved funds in the United States. If for-
eign courts issue orders to confiscate that money, we need to be able to enforce
them. As a result, the current law needs to be expanded beyond drug trafficking
crimes. (Money Laundering Act of 2001, 39).
Fourth, the limitations period on seizing electronic funds from a bank account
should be extended from 1 year to 2 years. Current law requires that the Govern-
ment trace the money it wants to seize to the offense in which the money was in-
volved. The law recognizes, however, that money is fungible, and that one dollar in
a given bank account is the same as any other dollar. This fungible property rule,
however, only applies for 1 year (18 U.S.C. 984). If the money has been in the bank
account for more than a year, the Government cannot seize it without a strict trac-
ing analysissomething that is all but impossible if the account was active. We
need to be able to go back at least 2 years to give true effect to the purposes under-
lying this law. (Money Laundering Act of 2001, 15, S. 1371, 10).
There are other provisions in the Departments anti-money laundering bill that
would help us enormously in tracking the assets of terrorists. I mention these few
as among the most critical, but a comprehensive revamping of these laws is nec-
essary if we are to make meaningful headway against terrorism and other forms
of international organized crime. The Departments Money Laundering Act of 2001
sets out a core group of statutory tools that are necessary to meet the domestic and
transnational organized crime threats of the 21st Century. Attorney General
Ashcroft considers passage of this legislation essential to any success in disrupting
and dismantling the business of organized crime and the cruel reality of terrorism.
Conclusion
I believe that the extraordinary events of September 11 should provide the impe-
tus to jump-start consideration of money laundering legislation that will allow us
to address the threats presented to us by international terrorists and criminals. The
Department stands ready to provide any assistance it can to facilitate prompt con-
sideration of its legislative proposals.
I would like to conclude by expressing the gratitude of the Department of Justice
for the continuing support this Committee has demonstrated for our anti-money
laundering activities. We in the Department of Justice look forward to working
alongside our Treasury colleagues, with this Committee, with your other colleagues
in the Senate, and your counterparts in the House to strengthen the U.S. anti-
money laundering regime at this critical hour.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any questions you may have at this time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STUART E. EIZENSTAT 1
FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, and Members of the Committee, good morning.
This is my first appearance before this Committee since my return to private life,
and I am glad to see you again. But more important, I am honored to have this
opportunity to contribute to your examination of money laundering and the prob-
lems it raises for the United States. Stopping money laundering, and the syndicates
it finances, is critical to the fight against narcotics trafficking, organized crime, for-
eign corruption, and software counterfeiting and other intellectual property crimes,
1 I would like to thank Debra R. Volland of Covington & Burling and Stephen Kroll, formerly
Chief Counsel of the Treasurys Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and now in private
practice, for their assistance in preparing this testimony. Mr. Krolls public service in combating
money laundering was a singular contribution to the United States.
82
as well as to preserving the health of the global financial system. After the events
of September 11, it is clear that stopping money laundering is also critical to the
personal safety of our citizens.
The Committees decision to put these issues on its agenda is thus highly appro-
priate and, sadly, very timely. In the past two decades, in Republican and Demo-
cratic Administrations, the groundwork has been laid for effective action against the
criminal financial system. But we are now at a crucial point in deciding what that
action should be and how to take it. Answering those questions is not easy, as to-
days hearings will confirm, but our commitment to robust, effective, and balanced
action against domestic and international money laundering must remain focused
and firmly in place.
My experience during the last 8 years makes that plain to me. At the Department
of Commerce, I could see how difficult it was for our companies honestly to bid
against competitors who could draw on hidden sources of funds. At the Department
of State, I came more fully to understand how money laundering fuels the
kleptocracy that can undermine even the most well-thought-through economic devel-
opment efforts or policies to build civil society. And at the Treasury Department I
was confronted with the role money laundering plays in driving the narcotics trade
and the other crimes I have already mentioned, the way it infects the vitality of our
trade in goodsthrough the operation of the Black Market Peso Exchangeand the
degree to which it can undermine the credibility and safety of the global financial
system upon which our prosperity depends.
Now, we are brought face to face with another aspect of the criminal financial sys-
temits use by the merchants of terror. Mondays issuance by President Bush of
a new Executive Order aimed squarely at terrorist financing and expanding the
blocking of terrorist assets forcefully pinpoints an essential target. Terrorists must
have money to pay for weapons, travel, training, and even benefits for the family
members of suicide bombers. The September 11 terrorists spent tens, if not hun-
dreds, of thousands of dollars on U.S. flight training, and their U.S. living expenses
were likely even higher. They often paid cash, flashing rolls of bills. Estimates of
the total cost of the September 11 attacks exceed $1 million.
The capital that terrorists require comes from several sources. The first is pure
criminal activity, harking back to the daring daylight robbery of a Tzarist banking
van in 1907 by a gang led by a young Bolshevik named Josef Stalin. Terrorists en-
gage in credit card fraud, kidnapping, robbery, and extortion. Their paymasters can
include covert state sponsors, who can also conveniently look the other way at stra-
tegic partnerships between terrorists and organized criminal groups, especially nar-
cotics traffickers.
Large sums come from old fashioned fund raising through charitable organiza-
tions here and abroad; a recent World Bank study indicates that the globes civil
wars are primarily funded by contributions from diaspora populations. In some
cases donations are understood to be destined for use by terrorists, even when
raised for ostensibly humanitarian purposes. There are charities, for example, in
various Gulf States that may serve as conduits for Osama bin Laden and his Al
Qaeda movement.
Wealthy individuals may make large contributions. Bin Laden, whose private for-
tune is often estimated as having at least once amounted to $300 million, is likely
a special case, providing seed capital to nascent terrorist groups and operations
around the world. Evidence produced at the trial of defendants in the 1998 embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania indicated that bin Ladens web included various
trading and investment companies, with accounts in several world financial centers.
Reports that bin Ladens operatives sold the shares of leading international rein-
surers short on September 10 are simply speculative at this point. But his funds
are somewhere earning a return as part of the very system he has vowed to destroy.
However obtained, terrorist funds need to be transmitted across borders, mar-
shaled, and spentwith application of a new layer of camouflage at each step. This
is the money launderers domain and brings us directly back to the broader subject.
The sheer size of the criminal financial system provides a rough measure of the
problem at hand. The IMF has estimated the amount of money laundered annually
at between $600 billion and $1.5 trillion, or 25 percent of the worlds annual gross
domestic product. At least a third of that amount, up to half a trillion dollars annu-
ally, is thought to pass through U.S. financial institutions at least once on its clan-
destine journey. While these are estimates, they are as likely as not to be on the
conservative side. Whatever the precise number, it is far too high in real terms and
reminds us that the risks money laundering creates simply are not going away.
Money laundering is the financial side of crime. If the so-called smurfs can seem
merely odd as they dribble drug-tainted dollars into our financial institutions to stay
under the $10,000 threshold for reporting currency transactions, the sophisticated
83
cartel bankers who operate behind the shield of bank secrecy, offshore havens, or
suborned officialdom, with millions of dollars at their disposal, are anything but
quaint. And that is why, as I mentioned earlier, the fight to curtail money laun-
dering has been in the past the product of a bipartisan consensus.
The landmark legislation making money laundering a distinct and very serious
felony in the United States was the product of the Reagan Administration.
The Bush Administration led the way in creating the Financial Action Task Force,
at the G7 Summit in 1989, and establishing the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network at the Treasury a year later, and President Bush signed the Annunzio-
Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act in 1992; that landmark legislation authorized
suspicious transaction reporting and uniform funds transfer recordkeeping rules,
among other pillars of todays counter-money laundering programs in the United
States and around the world.
President Clinton used the occasion of his nationally televised address on the oc-
casion of the United Nations 50th Anniversary to call for an all-out effort against
international organized crime and money laundering, kicking off a coordinated 5
year effort to bring the worlds mafias and cartels to heel and finally to close the
gaps in our laws and regulatory systems that had permitted those criminal groups
to thrive.
The unhappy experience of the Bank of New York highlights the vulnerability of
our financial institutions. The Bank was involved in an alleged money laundering
scheme in which more than $7 billion was transmitted from Russia into the Bank
through various offshore secrecy jurisdictions. At least one relatively senior official
of the Bank was suborned, and she suborned others. We do not know to this day
how much of the money came from the accounts of the Russian Mafiya, how much
represented assets stolen in the course of the privatization of state industriesun-
dermining the hopes of Russian reformersand to what extent was the money hid-
den to escape legitimate taxation, destroying the fiscal projections on which the
reformers depended to lower taxes for ordinary citizens. We do know that the money
came out of Russia through accounts in shell banks chartered in places such as the
South Pacific island of Nauru. The Deputy Chairman of Russias Central Bank has
estimated that, in 1998 alone, $70 billion was transferred from Russian banks to
accounts in banks chartered in Nauru; not all of that money went to Bank of New
York, of course, but none of it was ever intended to stay in Nauru.
At the same time, everyone should understand that the growth of money laun-
dering is the dark side of globalization. It is an unfortunate by-product of the per-
sistent leveling of barriers to trade and capital flows since the end of World War
II, most importantly, of course, the end of capital controls around the world. As Sec-
retary Rubin famously pointed out in his address to the Summit of the Americas
in 1995when that Summit produced a hemispheric declaration against money
launderingfew of the acts that the money launderer takes are, in themselves, ille-
gal. All of our national policies are designed to stimulate saving, the free movement
of funds, and the operation of efficient payment systems.
What makes money laundering illegal is knowledge of the criminal origin of the
funds involved, the criminal purpose to which the funds will be put, or both, and
deliberate efforts to fog the transparency of the financial system for criminal ends.
The task confronting both Government and the financial sector is to shape cost-ef-
fective policies to filter out that tainted conduct, to find the one person in the bank
line who is a money launderer in the clothing of an honest bank customer. We de-
voted immense time and effort in the last 8 years to striking the necessary balance.
Our policy had a number of major components. We continued the drive for cre-
ative criminal and civil enforcement of our counter-money laundering laws.
We greatly expanded the information resources available to State and local offi-
cials who were building their own money laundering efforts, through programs such
as FinCENs Project Gateway.
We sought to level the playing field by closing gaps in coverage of previously inad-
equate regulated money transmitters and other nontraditional financial service pro-
viders, following our enforcement successes in the New York area against the flow
of funds to Colombia and the Dominican Republic in 19961998.
We issued guidance to help U.S. financial institutions build their own defenses
to protect their business reputations and avoid entanglement with crimeand give
appropriate scrutiny to private banking and similar high dollar-value accounts, es-
pecially for transactions that could involve transfer of the proceeds of corruption by
senior foreign officials. Unlike more general know your customer ideas that at-
tracted a great deal of criticism 2 years before, our guidance was carefully tailored
to help banks deal with identifiable situations in high-risk accounts.
84
We recognized the absolutely crucial importance of international cooperation to
disrupt the global flow of illicit money. We supported the work of the Financial Ac-
tion Task Force in its revision of its landmark Forty Recommendations, under the
FATF Presidency of Treasury Under Secretary Ron Noble in 1996.
We led the way in building the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units,
which now has over 50 member agencies that cooperate in sharing information to
fight money laundering around the world.
Even more important, we pushed forward the FATFs noncooperative countries
and territories (NCCT) project in the Clinton Administrations last 2 years. Fifteen
nations were cited as being noncooperative in the international fight against money
laundering in 2000,2 and the Treasury followed up the FATFs action and its own
analysis by issuing hard-hitting advisories to our financial institutions recom-
mending enhanced scrutiny against potential money laundering transactions involv-
ing those nations. I am especially proud that we did not play favorites. Russia was
on the list, but so was Israel. Liechtenstein was on the list, but so were the Phil-
ippines. We cited Nauru, but we also cited Panama and the Bahamas. And the reac-
tion has been very positive. While I was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury I met
with senior officials of Panama and with Israels then-Minister of Justice, and I
learned of the steps those countries were taking to be removed from the NCCT list.
My Treasury, Justice, and State Department colleagues met with officials of the gov-
ernments on the list at various levels to help get the necessary work donewith
clear results! Israel, and now Russia, have for the first time enacted laws to crim-
inalize money laundering and are working to put serious anti-money laundering
programs into place. Liechtenstein has broken down its time-honored bank secrecy
traditions. Panama is now prepared to share information to assist law enforcement
investigations around the world.
Finally, we issued the Nations first two National Money Laundering Strategies,
to present a balanced strategic view of our efforts and point the way forward, year-
by-year, as Congress asked us to do.
I would like to speak in more detail about several aspects of our work.
International Counter-Money Laundering Act of 2000now S. 398. The Inter-
national Counter-Money Laundering Act of 2000 (H.R. 3886), introduced on March
9, 2000, was an important part of our approach, because it would have given the
Executive Branch the tools necessary to deal in a measured, precise, and cost-effec-
tive way with particular money laundering threats. Under the legislation, which had
very strong support from senior Federal law enforcement professionals, the Sec-
retary of the Treasuryacting in concert with other senior government officials and
with prompt notice to the Congresswould have had the authority to designate a
specific foreign jurisdiction, financial institution, or a class of international trans-
action as being of primary money laundering concern to the United States. Al-
though the legislation had strong bipartisan support, and was approved by the
House Banking and Financial Services Committee by a 331 vote on June 8, 2000,
the legislation did not make it further in the 106th Congress.
I am very pleased that Senator Kerry has reintroduced the legislation, as S. 398,
with cosponsors including Senator Grassley and Chairman Sarbanes, as well as
Senator Levin, Senator Grassley, and Senator Rockefeller. I would like to explain
why KerryGrassleySarbanes is an extremely important step forward and deserves
the Committees, and the Congress, support now.
Succinctly, we have few tools to protect the financial system from international
money laundering. On one end of the spectrum, the Secretary can issue Treasury
Advisories, as we did in the summer of 2000; those warnings encourage U.S. finan-
cial institutions to pay special attention to transactions involving certain jurisdic-
tions. But they do not impose specific requirements, and they are not sufficient to
address the complexity of money laundering.
On the other end of the spectrum, the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (IEEPA) provides authority, following a Presidential finding of a national secu-
rity emergency, for full-scale sanctions and blocking orders that operate to suspend
financial and trade relations with the offending targets. President Clinton issued a
number of such orders, including two, in 1995 and 1998, directed at designated ter-
2 The list of NCCTs in 2000 was: the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Domi-
nica, Israel, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Panama, the Philippines,
Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. As indicated below, the Baha-
mas, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, and Panama were removed from the list in June 2001
after curing most or all of the deficiencies FATF cited, and 8 new countriesEgypt, Grenada,
Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Ukrainewere added to the list in
June and September 2001.
85
rorist organizations that led to accelerated efforts to locate funds of those organiza-
tions in the United States.
Of course, President Bush invoked IEEPA, among a number of other authorities,
on Monday. The Presidents order was obviously appropriate under the cir-
cumstances, and it sent a blunt and forceful message. There are many other situa-
tions in which we will not want to block all transactions, or in which our concern
centers around underregulated foreign financial institutions or holes in foreign
counter-money laundering efforts. In those cases a more flexible tool is necessary,
but we do not have one available, because under present law there is nothing be-
tween the two ends of the spectruma Treasury Advisory on the one hand, and full-
blown IEEPA sanctions on the other.
As I noted, the key to the proposed statutes operation is the determination by
the Secretary of the Treasury that a specific foreign jurisdiction, a financial institu-
tion operating outside the United States, or a class of international transactions is
of primary money laundering concern to the United States. The determination
would trigger the authority of the Secretary to take several actions in response.
After consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, the Sec-
retary could:
1. Require financial institutions operating in the United States to keep
records or file reports concerning specified types of transactions, in the ag-
gregate or by individual transaction, and to make the records available to
law enforcement officials and financial regulators upon request. Requiring
such record retention could prove invaluable to law enforcement and help
the Government better to understand the specific money laundering mecha-
nisms at work. As a corollary benefit, a requirement that U.S. institutions
increase the level of scrutiny they apply to transactions involving targeted
jurisdictions or institutions could result in pressure on the offending juris-
dictions to improve their laws.
2. Require financial institutions to ascertain the foreign beneficial owners
of any account opened or maintained in the United States. Requiring finan-
cial institutions to ascertain foreign beneficial ownership would help cut
through layers of obfuscation that are one of the money launderers primary
tools.
3. Require identification of those who are allowed to use a banks cor-
respondent accounts (as well as so-called payable-through accounts),
which allow customers of a foreign bank to conduct banking operations
through a U.S. bank just as if they were the U.S. banks own customers.
Requiring identification of those who are allowed to use a banks cor-
respondent accounts and payable-through accounts would prevent abuse of
these technical financial mechanisms by foreign money launderers who seek
to clean their dirty money through U.S. financial institutions. The United
States needs to be able to find out who really benefits from these accounts,
and, by application of transparency, discourage abusive practices.
4. Where necessary in extreme cases, the Secretary would have the au-
thority to impose conditions upon, or prohibit outright, the opening or main-
taining of correspondent or payable-through accounts. Having that author-
ity in reserve gives credibility to the rest of the statutes measures, and
may, in cases of documented, continuing abuse of the financial system by
known criminals, be a necessary last resort.
The legislation would also have made necessary corrections in existing law. It
would have codified and strengthened the safe harbor from civil liability for finan-
cial institutions that report suspicious activity. It would have toughened the geo-
graphic targeting order (GTO) mechanism that was used so effectively in New
York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, against Colombian and Dominican narcotics
traffickers. It would have made it clearas Congress intendedthat the struc-
turing penalties of the Bank Secrecy Act apply both to attempts to evade GTOs
and to attempts to circumvent the funds transfer recordkeeping and identification
rules that Congress specifically authorized in 1992. In addition, the legislation
would have made it clear that banks could under certain circumstances include sus-
picions of illegal activity by former bank employees in written employment ref-
erences sought by subsequent potential bank employers.
The legislation was designed to permit carefully tailored, almost surgical, action
against real abuse; that action was to be graduated, targeted, and discretionary
graduated so that the Secretary could act in a manner proportional to the threat
presented; targeted, so the Treasury could focus its response to particular facts and
circumstances; and discretionary, so the Treasury could integrate any possible
action into bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts to persuade offending juris-
86
dictions to change their practices so that invocation of the authority would not be
necessary. There will be situations in which the United States may have to lead the
way alone, and if so the statute would have given it the capacity to do so.
Importantly, the legislation would not jeopardize the privacy of the American pub-
lic. The focus of the recommended legislation is not on American citizens. The rec-
ommended legislation focuses on foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions,
or classes of transactions with or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States,
that involve the abuse of U.S. banks facing a specifically identified primary money
laundering concern. For this reason, the recommended legislation is different from
the so-called know your customer rules proposed 2 years ago. And finally, it should
be noted that the proposed legislation is narrowly drawn, so as not to add burdens
to financial institutions. The approach targets major money laundering threats
while minimizing any collateral burden on domestic financial institutions or inter-
ference with legitimate financial activities.
Changes to the Definition of Money Laundering Offenses in Title 18. We had also
hoped to see through the passage of legislation, long sought by the Department of
Justice, to widen the range of money laundering offenses. As you know, money laun-
dering under our criminal laws must involve the proceeds of specified unlawful
activities. Unless a particular set of transactions involves the proceeds of such a
predicate crime, it cannot serve as the basis for a money laundering investigation.
But there are important gaps in the definition, especially for crimes against foreign
governments, such as misappropriation of public funds, fraud, official bribery, arms
trafficking, and certain crimes of violence. Unless such crimes are made specified
unlawful activities, a rapacious foreign dictator can bring his funds to the United
States and hide them without fear of detection or prosecution in many cases; this
we should not, indeed we cannot, continue to allow. I am pleased that S. 1371, intro-
duced this session by Senator Levin and cosponsored by Senator Grassley, Chair-
man Sarbanes, Senator Kyl, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator DeWine, includes the
necessary change and important related changes to the Nations forfeiture laws.
FATF. We must continue to support FATF and other multilateral counter-money
laundering efforts. FATFs work is ongoing; in June it designated 6 additional na-
tionsIndonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Hungary, Guatemala, and Myanmaras non-
cooperative, and it completed the most recent round of reviews in early September
by adding Grenada and Ukraine to the list. But it has also signaled the progress
made in the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, the Bahamas, and Panama, by remov-
ing those countries from the list, and it is working with other designated countries
to ameliorate the problems identified in the NCCT process. In particular, I hope
that Israel, which has already initiated at least one significant money laundering
prosecution, can be removed from the list shortly.
This is multilateral cooperation at its best. The efforts of our Government, at the
Departments of Treasury, Justice, and State, must continue to view the problem of
money laundering holistically, as part of the broader issue of global financial
standardsfor banking supervision, tax administration, and counter-money laun-
dering controlthat are necessary to foster international prosperity and faith in
civil society, underlying the growth of democratic governance around the world. Be-
fore September 11, Treasury had yet to issue advisories concerning the countries
added to the FATF list this year; that may have been an accident of the calendar,
since the FATF had a supplementary meeting, at which it named Grenada and
Ukraine as noncooperative, in the first week in September. But I hope that the sort
of guidance that was issued in the past will continue to be the norm, rather than
a scaling back of the perceived consequences of the FATF designations.
I suspect that you would like me to compare the work in which we were engaged
more broadly with the approach of the new Administration to money laundering. It
is too early to make any firm comparisons. The Bush Administrations first National
Money Laundering Strategy emphasizes strong enforcement and intensified use of
criminal and civil asset forfeiture laws and continues a number of specific enforce-
ment initiativesthe High Intensity Financial Crime Areas or HIFCA program, ex-
panded State and local involvement in money laundering investigations, and efforts
to dismantle the Black Market Peso Exchangethat we began. And I was glad to
see Attorney General Ashcroft announce in a recent speech that he will be seeking
legislation like that sought by the sponsors of S. 1371, to expand the money laun-
dering laws in Title 18 to deal with the proceeds of foreign corruption, as I discussed
earlier in my statement. I understand the Administrations anti-terrorism legisla-
tion also includes a necessary amendment to the money laundering laws to add sup-
port for designated terrorist organizations to the statutes list of specified unlawful
activities; I support this change.
I hope, however, that the program outlined in the National Money Laundering
Strategy for 2001 does not shortchange appropriate legislative and regulatory efforts
87
to shore up the weaknesses in our financial mechanisms that money launderers can
exploit. There is no substitute for creative and aggressive enforcement of our laws;
but enforcement itself is not enough. A targeted approach to strengthening our anti-
money laundering rules is necessary to close loopholes through which criminal pro-
ceeds flow, and to reduce risks that later take countless resources to investigate and
prosecute, after the damage is done. We can never know who exploits the weak-
nesses in our network of transparent financial arrangements and anti-money laun-
dering defenses, and a program that relies only on enforcement is unlikely to be as
effective as we would want.
I would also like to mention several recommendations relating specifically to the
financing of terrorism. The Administration moved forcefully on Monday to cut off
terrorists financial oxygen; as the President recognized, that is a critical part of the
effort the Nation is now embarked, and rules already in place can be applied force-
fully and quickly to financial support for terrorism. Necessary steps include:
Adequate staffing, funding, and authority for the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking
Center first sought by National Security Council officials 18 months ago and ini-
tially brought together last week at the Treasury.
Intensified analysis and matching for terrorist links of information reported under
the counter-money laundering rules. We must also obtain information reported in
other countries, using the multilateral Egmont group of anti-money laundering
agencies that now has more than 50 members.
Investigation and blocking of underground banking practices such as the
Hawala, through which a potentially significant portion of terrorist funds is
thought to pass into or out of the United States without ever touching the formal
banking system.
Greater scrutiny of phony charitable organizations by our Government and our al-
lies abroad, a move that was begun in the last 5 years and is, again, brought
forcefully forward by Mondays Executive Order. That scrutiny must not be lim-
ited to the United States, because much of the money involved is simply not here,
and we should ask Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE to apply similar
scrutiny to ostensible charitable organizations operating in those nations.
Pressure by the FATF for quick improvement in the anti-money laundering and
financial transparency rules of countries such as the UAE and Pakistan.
Issuance of guidance about terrorist money laundering to U.S. financial institu-
tions, with special emphasis on identification of beneficial account ownership.
Continued careful coordination with the U.S. economic sanctions program aimed
at terrorists assets.
Of course, we cannot overestimate our chances of success; financial data alone, no
matter how good it is, rarely provides the archetypal smoking gun in investiga-
tions. Moreover, our adversaries are very good at hiding funds, using traditional
systems outside sophisticated financial channels to transfer funds, and, simply,
making do on a meager budget. And the amounts of money terrorism requireseven
for organized, purposeful, continuing terrorist organizations such as those that pro-
duced the September 11 tragedyis never large enough even to cause a blip in the
daily stream of international cross-border payments. But the fact that the clues are
not easy to find cannot and should not deter us. Information is rarely determinative;
even the fabled naval code breakers of World War II at Bletchley Park and at the
Naval Intelligence Station in Washington could only track U-Boats, on good days,
to ocean sectors many hundreds of square miles in area.
The acid test for me of the Administrations anti-money laundering strategy is
whether the Administration will support passage of S. 398, working with this Com-
mittee, which I hope will mark up the legislation and move it forward expeditiously.
Indeed the legislation was designed to give the Secretary of the Treasury the sort
of flexible targeted authority that can now be used to advantage in the fight against
financial aspects of terrorism, as well as against money laundering generally. I want
to emphasize again the bipartisan support we found in the House for last years
version of the legislation, and the 331 vote by which the House Banking Com-
mitteeled by Jim Leach of Iowasought to move that legislation, conscious of its
obligation to protect the expectations of our citizens about the credibility of our Fed-
erally insured financial institutions.
To sum up: the rapid growth of international commerce, along with advances in
technology, are making it easier for criminals in foreign jurisdictions to launder
money through foreign institutions into the United States, and hence to finance the
expansion of the global criminal economy and the growth of organized criminal
groups and international terrorists as substate threats to our security. Money laun-
dering debilitates the integrity and stability of financial and government institu-
tions worldwide, as a parasite that feeds on the very advances in global finance and
88
free economies that make successful money laundering possible. That is why we
have had a strong history of support on both sides of the aisle for designing inves-
tigative, regulatory, and legislative steps to fight money laundering around the
world, and why it is both fitting and essential that this Committee monitor the work
of the Administration in this critical area and act where necessary to shore up our
national defenses against this criminal contagion.
Thank you very much. Again, it is a pleasure to be here and contribute to the
Committees work. I would be happy to answer your questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. WECHSLER
FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, distinguished Members of the Committee, I want
to commend you for calling attention to the important and growing problem of
money laundering and the ways by which terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in par-
ticular raises, moves, launders, and distributes its money. It has been a while since
this Committee last seriously addressed this issue. I feel honored to have been
asked to participate in this hearing, and I thank you for the opportunity.
I would like to divide my remarks into three parts. First, I will discuss in general
terms what we know about how Al Qaedas financial network operates. Second, I
will describe what has and what can be done about it. And third, I will discuss how
we can better combat the general problem of money laundering.
The Al Qaeda Financial Network
Unlike most terrorist leaders, Osama bin Laden did not first gain recognition
among Islamic radicals for leading an army in battle, or for personal acts of valor
in combat, or even for running a local terrorist cell. He first gained fame for his
abilities to raise, manage, and move money for the Afghan armies fighting the Rus-
sians in the 1980s. He still derives much of his authority and influence from the
money under his control.
The terrorist financial network that Osama bin Laden helped build in the 1980s
provided the foundation for the financial network that supports Al Qaeda today.
This is commonly misunderstood. When reporting on Al Qaeda finances, journalists
generally focus on the $300 million bin Laden is reported to have inherited from
the family construction business, as if he is simply writing personal checks to terror-
ists in the field. If this was the case, the problem would be much easier to solve.
While his own funds have undoubtedly been helpful to his cause, his network of fi-
nancial donors, international investments, legal businesses, criminal enterprises,
smuggling mechanisms, Muslim charitable organizations, Islamic banks, and under-
ground money transfer businesses have been of far greater value.
Today this network continues to raise money throughout the world to constantly
replenish Al Qaedas coffers. And have no doubt that the money that is raised is
substantial. We should not be confused when we read that any one terrorist attack
likely only cost Al Qaeda a few thousand or a few hundred thousand dollars, or that
any one terrorist cell seemed to be just scraping by and committing petty crimes
to help fund their activities. There is an important difference in the amount of
money that is available to the organization overall, and the amount that is available
to any local element. This only makes sense. Think of the U.S. military: by any
measure it overall spends a lot of money each year. But if you go to any individual
army base, you will see sergeants desperately trying to scrape by with limited funds
and still achieve their mission.
As noted, Al Qaeda raises money from criminal schemes and seemingly legitimate
businessesand now we are all reading reports of United States, European, and
Japanese regulators investigating whether Al Qaeda may have profited from short-
selling reinsurance and airline stocks just before the recent attacksa frightening
possibility.
But perhaps the most important source of Al Qaedas funds are direct solicitations
and charitable contributions. This does not mean that everyone whose money goes
to Al Qaeda knows that they are contributing to terrorism. Millions of Muslims
around the world believe as part of their religion that donating to charity is a fun-
damental part of their lives. No doubt most would be aghast if they knew that some
of the money they may have given to charities has been diverted to terrorist use.
Nor does it mean that the charities that support Al Qaeda do not also provide social
services. Hamas and Hizzbolah have demonstrated that it is very advantageous for
a terrorist organization to also help the poor and weak. It does mean, however, that
89
Al Qaeda is able to get funds under the guise of charitable donations, mostly in
cash, and that money keeps coming. This is also, by the way, how the IRA has long
raised money in the United States. Once Al Qaeda has the money, it moves and
launders it through four primary methods.
First, there is simple cash movements and smuggling. We should remember that
the economies of much of the Middle East are much more cash intensive than our
own. If you lived there you would likely carry much more cash than you do today
and use electronic means much less. It is not terribly uncommon for people in say,
Saudi Arabia, to purchase something on the order of a car in cash. That means that
in general there is less of an electronic and paper trail in these societies, unfortu-
nately.
Second, Al Qaeda uses what we think of as the global banking system to hold and
launder money. Terrorists are particularly attracted to underregulated money laun-
dering havens. These places have little or no anti-money laundering regimesstrict
bank secrecy, poor customer identification, no bank supervision or examination, no
suspicious activity reporting, little or no cooperation with foreign law enforcement.
In an era of globalization and the internet such places provide no-questions-asked
banking services to clients from around the world who, for some reason or another,
are interested in hiding their money from authorities.
Third, Al Qaeda uses the Islamic banking system, which is an entirely legitimate
parallel system for those who feel their religion prohibits them from being involved
in the payment of interest. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system at
allbut it is in general even less regulated in many countries in which it operates.
And fourth, Al Qaeda undoubtedly makes good use of the hawala underground
banking system. The hawala system is particularly valuable to Al Qaeda because
it allows little or no paper trail, just money transfer without money movement.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with the hawala systemit has been in op-
eration in South Asia and the Middle East for centuries, and there is a similarly
ancient system based out of China. In some remote areas of the globe the hawala
system is the banking systemthere are no Citibank branches.
The system is run by South Asians along familial lines and has served people in
the Middle East for centuries. You are a Hawaladar because your family has for
generations. Moving money through the Hawala system is as easy as a phone call,
or a fax, or an e-mail from one Hawaladar to another. A client gives cash to a
Hawaladar in say, Pakistan, and asks him to make sure that another person gets
it in say, New York. So the hawaladar calls his colleague in New York, who hands
out an equivalent amount of money. At no time, however, is there any wire transfer
or basic connection with the wider banking system. Accounts are balanced quite
often over time, since there is thought to be quite a lot of money constantly rolling
through the system. But if accounts are unbalanced for a while between the two
Hawaladars, they are not concerned because fundamentally they trust each other.
They are good for it. They have been in this business for generations and they are
not going to cheat each other. And perhaps if the accounts get seriously unbalances,
then they will have to actually move cash from one place to another, or engage in
some under-invoicing scheme to transfer wealth.
As best we can tell, Al Qaeda distributes money to its decentralized, loose confed-
eration of terrorist cells mostly as start up money or venture capital. The cells are
then required to help sustain themselves, sometimes from crimes such as cigarette
smuggling, a particular favorite of criminal networks around the world.
Combating the Al Qaeda Financial Network
We should also recognize what can and cannot be accomplished by targeting the
financial network. Such actions will not, by themselves, strike a death blow to Al
Qaeda. There is no silver bullet here. We are not likely to wake up one morning
and read in the newspaper that the United States and its allies have frozen all of
Al Qaedas money and therefore the terrorist organization is no more.
Here in the United States we have been going after organized crimes financial
network ever since we convicted Al Capone for tax evasion. But organized crime still
exists. What we can do is identify key components of the financial network and dis-
rupt them by rounding up key people, shutting down front companies, and targeting
the banks that provide laundering services. Every time a key component is dis-
rupted it will force Al Qaeda to take time, money, and personnel to rebuild itand
in the process likely deter or delay individual terrorist operations. Over the long
term, combined with additional military, diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforce-
ment actions, these efforts will eventually seriously degrade Al Qaedas terrorist
capacity. Organized crime in the United States is not today what it was several dec-
ades ago. We can score a similar victory over Al Qaeda, but it will take time.
90
That is as far as the analogy with organized crime can be taken, however. We
have tools that can be used against Al Qaeda that could never be used against orga-
nized crimeour military services and intelligence community. But we also face a
more difficult environment in which to target the Al Qaeda financial network. Here
in the United States we have over the years built a strong anti-money laundering
regime, including specific anti-money laundering laws and bank regulations. Vir-
tually none of this exists where Al Qaeda raises and moves most of its money. This
makes the problem much more difficult.
Disrupting, degrading, and where possible, taking down the Al Qaeda financial
network will require actions by both the Bush Administration and the Congress.
The Administrations efforts should focus on fully exploiting the power inherent in
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law cited by President Bush
in his Executive Order on Monday. President Bush should be commended for his
announcement on Monday, and for his establishment of a new Terrorist Asset
Tracking Center in Treasurys Office of Foreign Asset Controls. These acts have
started the Bush Administration off on the right path.
The most important provision of the Executive Order that President Bush an-
nounced Monday is not the one that freezes assets in the United States, although
this is nice to do in those rare moments when money is actually found. Most of the
time, however, people like Osama bin Laden are a little too smart to put money in
U.S. banks under their own names. That is why the first question that is always
asked in these instances is the wrong oneso how much money have we frozen?
A better question to ask is what is your plan for how you going to use this author-
ity to get new information about and new actions against the Al Qaeda financial
network that you would otherwise not be able to get. The most important provision
of the Executive Order is the one that then allows the United States to threaten
to cut off anyone, anywhere that is found to be controlled by or act on behalf
or provide support for Al Qaedaany person, company, bank, or country. This al-
lows the United States to quietly, behind the scenes, approach foreign governments
and institutions that might fall into that category, whether willfully or unwittingly,
and then present them with a simple proposition: be cut off from the U.S. economy
or quietly give the United States new information on terrorist financing and take
additional actions against the Al Qaeda financial network. I must stress that in
many cases this has to be done quietly to be effective.
This is the strategy that the Clinton Administration adopted after the terrorist
attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, when President Clinton signed
similar Executive Orders against Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghani-
stan. In some instances it was successful, and the United States was able to get
a degree of cooperation from certain countries that it had previously been denied.
For instance, these efforts helped ground the Afghan national airline around the
world, at the time a key way Al Qaeda moved resources back and forth from Af-
ghanistan. There is no doubt that this action disrupted a key element of Al Qaedas
infrastructure.
But in the big picture we only had limited successes. In some cases, foreign gov-
ernments responded with delay and denial due to a lack of political will. In other
cases the governments in question wanted to help, but had limited abilities to get
the information we wanted since they had no anti-money laundering regime and did
not routinely audit charities. In the current environment, however, and with a in-
creased focus on the charities that provide a direct fundraising link between Al
Qaeda and the wider societies in the Middle East, the Bush Administration should
be able to be more effective in this effort.
Three things now need to be done. First, President Bush, Secretary Powell, and
Secretary ONeill now should now, as part of their quiet discussions with their coun-
terparts in key countriesparticularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, the United
Arab Emirates, and all generally friendly nations along the Persian Gulfsully ex-
ploit the leverage inherent in the Presidents Executive Orders and personally de-
mand that their law enforcement and intelligence services fully cooperate with U.S.
efforts to trace and destroy the Al Qaeda financial network, no matter where the
money trail leads. They should also demand that these countries bring their anti-
money laundering regimes up to full compliance with international standards. These
countries should also fully audit their domestic Muslim charitable organizations,
using outside auditors if necessary, to ensure that they are not being used as fronts
for terrorist cells. It will undoubtedly be difficult to get many of these countries to
take these steps. But without these actions U.S. efforts to combat the Al Qaeda fi-
nancial network will continue to be only marginally effective.
Second, the Bush Administration should identify and take down individual foreign
banks that are found to be safe havens for terrorist funds. This might be done cov-
ertly, through information warfare. Or it might be done overtly if the Administra-
91
tion can using Mondays Executive Order, get enough publicly-releasable informa-
tion that show that a specific foreign bank is moving money for Al Qaeda. But that
can be a high threshold. Quite often, in my experience, our intelligence may be
sketchy, or we may have enough intelligence but cannot release it for important rea-
sons involving sources and methods of collection.
What is needed is a new set of powers to more easily and effectively cut rogue
banks off from the legitimate international financial system. The United States
needs to be able to approach suspected foreign rogue banksagain often quietly, be-
hind the scenesthreaten to sanction them not because we can prove that there are
some specific terrorist funds going through an account, but because of general con-
cerns that the bank has become a money laundering haven. This could mean that
the bank has no internal compliance system, that it has a pattern of illegal activi-
ties, or that it operates under a strict bank secrecy regime. These facts would be
much easier to prove openly, and therefore give the United States important addi-
tional leverage to use strategically.
Last year a bipartisan bill that would have done just that was supported by the
Clinton Administration. Unfortunately, even after passing out of the House Banking
Committee 31 to 1, it was killed without ever receiving a full vote. As of Monday,
the Bush Administration still had not figured out its position, even though Treasury
Secretary ONeill was first briefed on this matter during his first weeks in office.
Let me be clear: I know that bill backward and forward. There is absolutely no good
reason why it should not be law as soon as possible. There are few things that the
Congress could do that would be more helpful in the fight against terrorism. The
Treasury and the diplomatic and intelligence communities should begin work now
behind the scenes to identify which specific foreign banks will be approached after
this becomes law.
And finally, the Bush Administration and the Congress together should make
sure that we are doing everything we can to prevent terrorist fundraising at home.
We should make it harder for websites to solicit funds for terrorist groups online.
U.S. financial institutions should be given specific guidance on how to identify
transactions that raise suspicions of terrorist financing. Moreover, the Hawala un-
derground banking system is alive and well in virtually every major U.S. city, al-
most completely unregulated. Law enforcement has done a poor job at getting its
arms around the Hawala system and the role it plays in terrorist financing. A
Treasury Department regulation that would require these underground bankers to
register, and make it a Federal crime if they do not, has recently been delayed. This
decision should be reversed and the FBI should aggressively begin to use this new
legal tool against suspected terrorist moneymen. And the Congress should make
sure that the Treasury issues regulations immediately, under authority it already
has, to bring nondepository financial institutions such as casinos, securities brokers,
and insurance firms into the U.S. anti-money laundering regime. These steps are
required if the United States is to become in full compliance with international
standards. And given the new global investigations of possible terrorist stock manip-
ulations, it is all the more important that the securities industry operating in the
United States should be required to report suspicious transactions just as those op-
erating in Europe already do.
In all, efforts to take down terrorist groups and their supporters through military
actions will likely take longer than we now appreciate; efforts take down terrorisms
financial network will likely take even more time. But I have no doubt that a fully
committed United States will eventually be successful in both.
The General Problem of Money Laundering
Many of the ways in which Al Qaeda moves and launders money are also used
by other criminal organizations and drug cartels around the world. Other witnesses
today, including Stuart E. Eizenstat, already have described the general threat the
United States faces from money laundering, at home and abroad. They have out-
lined how money laundering feeds, furthers, and facilitates criminal and terrorist
enterprises; how money laundering can corrupt the safety and soundness of indi-
vidual financial institutions and can undermine the integrity of national financial
systems; and how money laundering can harm U.S. national interests around the
world.
I would like only to stress one aspect of this general problem for you here today,
before I move on to what can be done to combat it. We cannot fully discuss money
laundering today without taking into account globalization. Relatively recent ad-
vances in banking and communications technologies have allowed money to move
farther and faster around the world than ever before. Distant countries are now just
a mouse-click away and the bank next door may be doing business halfway around
the world.
92
But just as this has opened great opportunities for legitimate commerce and in-
vestment, this has also opened great opportunities for criminals. The global finan-
cial system is only as strong as its weakest link, and money launderers and tax
evaders have been adept at finding, exploiting, and even creating some of those
weak links. So in recent years we saw the vast proliferation of money laundering
havensplaces where drug cartels and terrorist organizations could easily find no-
questions-asked banking secrecy. Many of these places even advertised their weak
bank regulatory systems and poor anti-money laundering regimes on the internet.
And once dirty funds have been washed clean in these money laundering havens,
they often find their way to the United States.
For instance, just a few years ago, the small South Pacific island of Nauru was
an exceedingly marginal player in the global banking system. But after it decided
to become a money laundering haven, things changed. A single bank registered in
Nauru was the ordering party for more than $3 billion of the $7.5 billion that ille-
gally moved from Russia through the Bank of New York. And in 1998, according
to the Russian Central Bank, of the $74 billion that was transferred from Russia
to offshore accounts, $70 billion went to banks registered in Nauru.
The Clinton Administration appreciated how globalization had fundamentally
changed the environment for the fight against money laundering. Internationally,
we worked with our G7 allies in a cooperative, multilateral, and eventually suc-
cessful effort to combat global financial abusesmoney laundering, tax evasion, and
rogue banking. Domestically, we issued the first-ever National Money Laundering
Strategy, which represented the most comprehensive approach ever taken on this
issue.
The Clinton Administrations strategy was driven by one fundamental principle:
law enforcement and regulatory agencies must move forward together in order to
combat money laundering effectively. We had unprecedented law enforcement vic-
tories such as Operation Casablanca against Mexican money launderers. But not-
withstanding those accomplishments, the Clinton Administration also recognized
that law enforcement alone would not do the job. Improved examination and regula-
tion of the financial services industries for money laundering weaknesses had to be
part of the solution. Criminals were constantly developing new and ever more so-
phisticated money laundering techniques; our regulations had to keep pace.
This should not be a controversial principle. Indeed, the basic necessity of regu-
latory efforts to complement law enforcement efforts to combat money laundering
has been understood and attracted bipartisan support for years. President Nixon
signed the Bank Secrecy Act that created the regulatory framework that still exists
today. President Reagan made money laundering a crime in and of itself, fundamen-
tally expanding that framework. President George H.W. Bush created the Treasury
Departments Financial Crime Enforcement Network, the lead regulatory agency in
the fight against money laundering. This regulatory framework has received vir-
tually unanimous support from the U.S. law enforcement community during both
Democratic and Republican Administrations. And finally, beginning with the first
Bush Administration and continuing throughout the Clinton Administration, the
United States worked with its international allies to establish strong international
anti-money laundering standards, including mandatory customer identification and
suspicious activity reporting by financial institutions. To put it bluntly, almost all
of the worlds well-developed financial centers have grown to accept the regulatory
anti-money laundering framework that the United States first invented.
But with globalization changing the nature of the money laundering problem, the
Clinton Administration also recognized that the United States could not continue to
push the international community to do more without making sure that we were
strengthening our own anti-money laundering regime here at home. So this, too,
was a reason why the Clinton Administration held as one of its driving principles
that law enforcement and regulatory improvements must go hand in hand.
Many long-time observers of the Federal bureaucracy did not think this would
work. Federal law enforcement agencies have long been notorious for not cooper-
ating with each other, much less regulatory agencies. And I do not have to tell this
Committee about the historical problems the Federal financial services regulatory
agencies have had learning to cooperate with each other. But the strategy did work,
better then almost anyone had predicted, thanks in no small part to the skills of
Stuart Eizenstat and the leadership of Lawrence Summers. U.S. international
achievements were unprecedented as Mr. Eizenstat has described. New law enforce-
ment programs were begun setting the stage for what the Bush Administration now
hopes to accomplish. And important new regulatory initiatives were unveiled, such
as the guidance issued to U.S. financial institutions to help protect the U.S. finan-
cial system from being abused by corrupt foreign leaders.
93
Unfortunately, before the horrible events of September 11, the media reports indi-
cated that there were wide philosophical divergences within the Bush Administra-
tion on how to best address money laundering. From Attorney General John
Ashcroft, we heard a commendable speech urging strong actions and proposing legis-
lative changes that would help law enforcement. His proposals closely resembled
proposals made previously by the Clinton Administration but not then acted upon
by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Federal law enforcement agencies
are also reportedly stepping up a Clinton Administration initiative to measure the
effectiveness of their efforts and resources in the fight against money laundering.
These law enforcement efforts should be commended. I assume that the Bush Ad-
ministration will seek the personnel and funding necessary to ensure they succeed.
On the other hand, many law enforcement officials have been concerned about
what they have heard from White House Economic Advisor Lawrence Lindsay for
many years: his strong opposition to the legal and regulatory foundations of the U.S.
anti-money laundering regime, even those regulations that are now at the heart of
international anti-money laundering standards. And Treasury Secretary Paul
ONeill had also publicly questioned the value of fundamental, longstanding ele-
ments of the U.S. anti-money laundering regulatory regime. Just a few weeks ago
regulatory officials were being told to reevaluate some existing anti-money laun-
dering rules, delay some long-planned regulatory enhancements, and forego alto-
gether some anticipated new regulatory initiatives that would further assist law
enforcement and deter criminals from abusing the U.S. financial system. Treasurys
cost-benefit analyses were focusing not on the horrible costs Americans bear from
drug trafficking, terrorism, and other crimes that money laundering helps finance,
but on the relatively minor costs U.S. banks bear from living up to internationally
accepted anti-money laundering regulations. As an institution the Treasury Depart-
ment seemed to be caught in the middle with one partthe one represented here
todayresponsible for law enforcement and wanting to take one step forward, and
another part responsible for overseeing regulatory policies and wanting to take one
step back. Perhaps in the wake of recent events this has all changed. If so, that
will be good news. Money laundering is vital to terrorists and other criminals
around the world. To fight them, we need law enforcement, diplomats, intelligence
officials, and the regulators all working together, all talking from the same script.
Thank you, once again, for giving me the opportunity to share my opinions on this
important subject. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WINER

FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Committee, I am grateful for
the opportunity to testify before you on the topic of domestic and international
money laundering and terrorist finance. Given our national emergency, I will focus
my testimony solely on what we can do to combat terrorist finance.
Mr. Chairman, there is much we do not know about terrorist finance, and about
Osama bin Ladens financial networks. However, the many shards of information we
do have should concentrate our minds on the work ahead.
Before you is a chart displaying a portion of Osama bin Ladens financial network.
Every one of the more than 100 boxes on this chart reflects a publicly reported fi-
nancial link of bin Laden, residing in more than 20 separate countries, in the Amer-
icas, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Public information
demonstrates terrorist funds moving through Islamic charities, travel agents, con-
struction businesses, fisheries, import-export businesses, stock markets, chemical
companies, and a number of banks. All of this is public record, and far from com-
plete. There simply is not room on a single chart to include everything connected
to bin Laden and related terrorist groups.
Some of these entities are now defunct, as a result of law enforcement and other
operations. Others may have only marginal ties to terrorist finance. But the chart
illustrates why responding to this multifaceted network will require sustained, tena-
cious cooperation by many, many governments.
The actions announced by the Bush Administration on Monday represent some
potentially significant new steps. If followed by further action and international co-
operation, they could begin to have consequences. But that will only be true if every
component of the financial services sector internationallynot just banks and cer-
94
tainly not just U.S. banks or foreign banks with offices in the United Statesare
all subject to similar rules and obligations. An anti-terrorist finance regime must
be globalized, standardized, harmonized, and it must be multisectoral to have im-
pact. The United States cannot dictate to other countries if the consequence is that
the United States does not achieve cooperation with others. The United States must
integrate other national policies with our own. In financial services regulation, in-
cluding dealing with terrorist finance, having varying rules for different jurisdic-
tions, State, Federal, or international, invites trouble.
While there are many steps that should be taken, I wish to focus on seven areas
for action.
First, register and regulate money services businesses, including Hawala institu-
tions, as Congress has directed the Executive Branch to do since 1993. Our failure
to complete this process has created a substantial vulnerability by which terrorists
can anonymously obtain cash below the radar of our financial services regulatory
system. This is the Department of the Treasurys job. It should be completed with-
out further delay, so that nonbank money services businesses in the United States
are subject to obligations at least as tough as those already required of banks. To
be effective, these laws must then be vigorously enforced.
Second, increase the international pressure on countries that have yet to put into
place financial regulatory and enforcement regimes that facilitate accountability and
the tracing of assets. We have been doing this already, but we need to push harder
and faster. Financial institutions that are based in jurisdictions that are not ade-
quately regulated should not have unfettered access to our financial institutions, un-
less they can demonstrate that other adequate protections are in place. Adequate
financial services regulation, supervision, and enforcement is essential not only to
discourage terrorist finance, but also to protect international financial stability. The
recent apparent attacks on global markets by apparent terrorist short-sellers dem-
onstrates why being able to trace financial transactions internationally cannot be
discretionary. Financial regulation and enforcement cannot stop at borders when
terrorist finances do not. They must be evenly promulgated and evenly enforced.
Third, the United States needs to accelerate efforts to ensure that every nation
signs up to the UN Terrorist Finance Convention, criminalizes terrorist finance, and
freezes and seizes terrorist funds and assets of organizations that support terrorism.
Fourth, the United States must do more to build our terrorist finance database
from existing cases. Not merely the records associated with every terrorist prosecu-
tion should be scoured but cases that abut or adjoin terrorist activity but involve
other criminal activity. The Bush Administration has announced that it has now
begun this task.
Fifth, the Congress should support Presidential use of economic war powers to
broaden the reach of U.S. sanctions policy in true national security emergencies, as
the President announced he would do on Monday. But unilateral action is inher-
ently insufficient. We must obtain the support of key partners including the G8
and the European Union.
Six, the United States needs to secure domestic and international action against
those entities that have wittingly or unwittingly provided support to terrorism, as
the President committed himself to doing in his announcement Monday. These in-
clude a number of Islamic charities, some of which are prominent and otherwise do
many good works. We will need to work with other governments, including many
in the Middle East, to cleanse charities that have supported terrorism unwittingly
and to protect them from abuses by terrorists. Other charities, who have systemati-
cally supported terrorism, should be closed down, with their assets seized and made
available to assist terrorisms victims.
Seventh, we need to strengthen international regulatory cooperation in our securi-
ties markets, and close regulatory gaps, so that no terrorist who engages in the ob-
scene act of market manipulation in connection with an attack ever gets away with
it. Countries whose bank secrecy laws, anonymous trusts and untraceable business
companies are used by terrrorists need to understand there will be consequences if
they do not quickly change their laws and practices to help the world trace and seize
terrorist finances.
In summary, cutting off terrorist finance is like cutting off the heads of the hydra.
Every time we chop off one head, more will grow back in its place. To survive, we
must kill the entire beast, and that means more than a single bin Laden, or any
one part of his or related terrorist finance networks. I am available to answer any
questions you may have.
Steps to be considered by the United States in connection with combating terrorist
finance.
95
Regulating Hawala and MSB Regulations
Congress directed the Administration in 1993 in the AnnuzioWylie Act to require
registration of all money services businesses. Because the Executive Branch had
never regulated money services businesses, uncertainty about how best to proceed,
and at what level suspicious transactions should be reported, delayed the issuance
of regulations until August 1999. The Clinton Administration delayed implementa-
tion of the MSB regulations until the end of 2001. This year, the Bush Administra-
tion announced that it was delaying the MSB regulations still further, to late 2002.
The Executive Branch has undertaken little focused attention on underground bank-
ing systems and money services businesses in the United States, and U.S. Govern-
ment knowledge about these businesses remains limited. Actions regarding Hawala
and MSB that could be considered would include:
Requiring all MSBs to register within a very short period, rather than by late
2002. The form for MSB reporting already exists. Requiring registration imme-
diately would transform those entities that are not registered illegal. This will in-
evitably include all or most Hawalas, which are unlikely to register, making them
vulnerable to being shut down by law enforcement as our intelligence regarding
Hawalas deepens.
Issuing new suspicious activity reporting (SAR) requirements focused on Hawala
type business to existing U.S. financial institutions. This advisory would be issued
from FinCen and require enhanced scrutiny of the transactions that involve
Islamic countries and their neighbors, and which meet other indicia such as: ap-
parent commingling of funds, dollar volume of business not commensurate with
stated nature of business; substantial number of transactions to locations in the
Middle East not commensurate with stated nature of business. Here, reference to
existing indicia applicable to Black Market Peso Exchange could be translated
into Hawala indicia.
Issuing SAR requirements to MSBs which in turn create various specifications on
possible indicia of activity involving unregistered MSBs (Hawala, Hundi, chop or
flying money houses) and as well, separately, other possible indicia of terrorist
finance.
Reducing the threshold for MSB currency reporting requirements, which would
require revised regulations to be issued by Treasury/FinCen. Originally, MSB reg-
ulations would have required a low suspicious activity reporting requirement of
$500. The MSBs objected, and the suspicious activity reporting requirement was
raised to $2,000 for some transactions, and $5,000 for others. Given what we have
learned about the use of currency by the terrorists who attacked the United
States, the Administration should consider revising the suspicious reporting re-
quirement downward for money service businesses, with exceptions as appropriate
for larger institutions that have other, adequate controls. This lower reporting re-
quirement could be amended as needed as experience is gained, or as we find our-
selves beyond the current emergency. Lower reporting requirements for suspicious
reports for money services businesses will likely push some funds out of MSBs
entirely into the formal regulated U.S. banking system. This outcome is not nec-
essarily a negative, as our banks, thrifts, and credit unions are certainly better
regulated and more accountable than money service businesses have been to date.
Consider adding to the existing MSB form another question which would require
MSBs to specify whether they handle remittances directed to foreign countries,
and if so, to specify the countries where they regularly handle such remittances.
This question could provide a means of focusing which MSBs may be used by
those in terrorist strongholds, for early on-site inspection.
Immediately begin on-site inspections of registered MSBs, focusing first on those
that handle remittances to the Middle East. There are two possible near term
options for conducting such inspections. First, the Congress or possibly the Ad-
ministration by Executive Order, could grant such authority to the examiners of
the existing regulated banking industry, such as the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Federal De-
posit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Federal Reserve could perhaps share in
this obligation. These organizations might defer their regular schedule of exami-
nations on some institutions they already regulate to review the operations of the
newly registered MSBs, when necessary, on-site. Second, the Federal Government
could encourage State banking officials and other regulators to examine money
service businesses where such they have authority at the State level. In some
States, MSBs are already theoretically regulated. Nevertheless, in many jurisdic-
tions oversight of MSBs is irregular, inadequate, or nonexistent. On-site inspec-
tions may uncover a variety of poor practices, and could provide insights as to
which institutions are being used for illicit finance to terrorists. They would also
96
likely provide information on MSBs which remain unregistered, and thus illicit,
and thus provide leads to other criminal financial activity.
Prosecute unregistered MSBs for failure to register.
Seize records and assets of unregistered MSBs who fail to register.
If deemed necessary, increase the penalties substantially for MSB failure to reg-
ister or to report suspicious transactions involving currency.
Amend existing MSB regulations to explicitly describe Hawala type institutions
as included within MSBs. This could make it easier to demonstrate intentional
noncompliance in prosecutions, rather than accidental failure to register.
Enhanced Scrutiny of Financial Institutions in Underregulated Jurisdictions,
Especially Those in the Middle East
Banks in major money centers in the world have put into place increasingly
strong constraints against the placement of illicit funds. Some banks based in the
Middle East, operating globally, have equally good systems for preventing money
laundering and terrorist finance. However, to date there has been little to no money
laundering enforcement in the Middle East. Historical reasons abound. For example,
in oil rich states, those controlling oil resources have often preferred to require less
financial transparency as a means of discouraging oversight by others within their
country or outside it. In some oil rich countries, income taxes do not exist, and with-
out such taxes some governments have had less incentive to maintain accounting,
auditing, and financial standards to trace funds. Endemic corruption in other coun-
tries has further impeded transparency and oversight. Currently in the Middle East,
the only countries with money laundering laws of any significant scope are Cyprus,
Israel, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. Each of these countries has a his-
tory of money laundering and lack of financial transparency. For many years, until
it cleaned up its financial services sector in response to pressure from the European
Union, the United States, and others, Cyprus was one of the worlds centers for ter-
rorist finance. In the remainder of the Gulf States, as well as in Algeria, Nigeria,
Sudan, Egypt, among other countries, there remains little obstruction to many
forms of financial crime and little to no scrutiny that would prevent money laun-
dering. A week before the attack on the United States, Nigeria and Egypt were al-
ready placed on the list of noncooperative countries by the Financial Action Task
Force, as Israel and Lebanon had before them. The United States should consider
undertaking a twin regulatory and diplomatic approach in relation to the financial
institutions of those countries that place no barriers to the placement of terrorist
funds. The regulatory approach would require enhanced scrutiny of financial trans-
actions coming from these countries. A concurrent diplomatic approach would re-
quire countries without money laundering laws or their enforcement, to enact and
enforce such laws or face sanctions from the United States such as enhanced scru-
tiny by U.S. financial institutions. Actions the United States could consider in pur-
suit of this objective might include:
Asking the Financial Action Task Force to speed its consideration of sanctions
against noncooperative countries such as Nigeria and Egypt and to hold emer-
gency meetings to consider further multilateral measures to combat terrorist fi-
nance; these could include enhanced efforts against underground banking systems
such as the Hawala as specified above.
Asking Pakistan and the Gulf States to regulate Hawala without delay. Every
country in the world should be asked, and as appropriate, required to register
Hawalas.
Advising countries that have failed to put money laundering laws into place of
the immediate steps needed to provide tightened scrutiny and recordkeeping on
financial transactions as mechanism to deal with the problem that institutions in
these countries have been used wholesale for the placement of terrorist funds.
Advising countries that do not have the capacity to discourage the placement of
terrorist funds in their financial institutions of the United States intention to
place enhanced scrutiny on such institutions. The United States needs to consult
with these countries regarding the possible market implications of reduced access
to the United States upon failure to impose measures against money laundering.
Any actual enforcement decisions need to be rendered on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that financial institutions that have put into place strong anti-terrorist
and anti-money laundering compliance programs do not suffer from sanctions.
Building Momentum for Ceasing Terrorist Finance Internationally
While many countries have given lip service to combating terrorist finance, ag-
gressive, coordinated, pragmatic action against this problem has been limited. To
date, the United States has not undertaken adequate action to stimulate immediate
97
implementation of regimes to counter terrorist finance. Near term actions to build
international capacity against terrorist finance could include the following:
Asking each country that has yet to sign on to the Terrorist Finance Convention
to demonstrate their opposition to terrorism by signing, ratifying, and imple-
menting this Convention without delay.
Seeking commitments by other countries to put into place sanctions similar to
those the United States has promulgated in connection with its use of the Inter-
national Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Instructing U.S. executive directors at World Bank and IMF to vote against fund-
ing to states that do not sign up to Terrorist Finance Convention and to promise
to implement it.
Asking Finance Ministries of U.S. allies to similarly make action against terrorist
finance a precondition to receiving support from the World Bank and similar
international financial institutions. Concerted efforts by the major donor efforts
to channel funds in relationship to anti-terrorist efforts and to deny funds to juris-
dictions that fail to take such steps could provide substantial incentives for appro-
priate action against terrorist finance.
Asking Interpol in Lyon, France to undertake immediate efforts at pooling exper-
tise on terrorist finance and make recommendations for further global actions to
combat terrorist finance; request experts at Europol in the Hague, and the World
Customs Organization in Paris, do the same, as well as the G7/G8 process.
Requesting the Basel Committee of Bank Supervisors to work with the Inter-
national Monetary Fund and other appropriate institutions important to the
development of international regulatory standards to meet and make rec-
ommendations on actions they can take to attenuate terrorist finance.
Building Intelligence From Existing Cases
In both State and Federal law enforcement, there are cases involving witnesses
or defendants involved in such activities as money laundering, document fraud,
credit card crime, alien smuggling, trafficking in women, drug smuggling, and other
crimes who may be in a position to shed light on terrorist finance, or on under-
ground banking, or both, if the information were to be viewed as important by the
law enforcement officials investigating and prosecuting the original offense. The
United States should consider asking Federal and State law enforcement agencies
in jurisdictions across the Nation to review cases undertaken over the past 2 years
that involved any form of possible links to terrorist finance or to Hawala system,
or to underground banking. When field offices and locals report such cases, these
offices could present information pertaining to such cases, such as documents, infor-
mation from transcripts or depositions, and names of possible witnesses/informants
to the task force at Treasury tasked with creating the integrated terrorist finance
database. This additional information could be used not only to investigate ter-
rorism, but also to track unregistered Hawala and MSBs to prosecute them for fail-
ure to register in connection with the MSB initiative discussed above. Such informa-
tion may also provide the basis for asset seizures and record seizures. Such informa-
tion can in turn be shared with U.S. intelligence agencies as a mechanism to better
target intelligence collection on terrorist finance, which can then in turn be pushed
back when appropriate to law enforcement, or else dealt with in an IEEPA or na-
tional security context, as specified below.
Broaden Information Base and Scope of Application of IEEPA
The United States has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA) to the limits of what may be possible to target bin Laden and the Taliban
within United States and among U.S.-based institutions. The historic effectiveness
of IEEPA has been limited in two respects. First, it appears that the United States
has yet to cover enough of bin Ladens businesses under IEEPA, including the in-
struments through which he has laundered and hidden his resources. Second,
IEEPAs unilateral nature and limitation to territory of the United States for foreign
institutions based here has impaired its effectiveness due to bin Ladens use of fi-
nancial institutions outside the United States. Accordingly, the United States
should urgently add names of specific terrorist support entities under IEEPA be-
yond the very short list provided to date. Also, the United States should secure the
support of other countries to adopt IEEPA-like sanctions, so that terrorist finance
does not simply slide from the United States to other countries. Harmonizing inter-
national efforts against terrorist finance is essential here for sanctions to be effec-
tive and fair. Given globalization, it makes little sense for financial institutions
based in the United States to be subject to more stringent rules than similar institu-
tions outside of the United States.
98
Require Enhanced Scrutiny of Islamic Charities
Contributing to charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. Islamic charities perform
numerous good deeds every day, all over the world. A number of Islamic charities
have, however, had either provided funds to terrorists or failed to prevent their
funds from being diverted to terrorist use. While the vast majority of the uses of
these charities are proper, ethical, and humane, a method to cleanse these charities
of their terrorist connections must be found. The United States should work with
foreign governments and with representatives of Islamic charities to develop pro-
grams that would provide better oversight of and controls on the uses of charitable
funds within the Islamic world. The United States has found over the years the
need to exercise substantial controls over the functioning of charities to prevent
abuses. Other countries, and the Islamic charities themselves, need to undertake
similar steps. If they do not, the United States should follow through on the commit-
ment made by President Bush to freeze the funds of charities that have become
vehicles for terrorist finance.
Enhance Cooperation Among International Securities Regulators To Trace Cases
Involving Market Manipulation, Especially in Futures and Options Markets
The SEC has stated that it is investigating a possible case of market manipula-
tion connected to the attacks on the United States, as have securities regulators of
some dozen other countries. We should use any information that is gathered in
these apparent cases of market manipulation by terrorism to assess the gaps within
the international regulatory system that impede efficient tracing of the proceeds of
such market manipulation and to close them. In addition to tracing these instances
of apparent market manipulation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Commodities Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) should meet with
counterparts in Japan, Hong Kong, the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, and other affected jurisdictions as soon as possible to identify any
weaknesses and impediments and to take collective action to improve mutual assist-
ance in future cases of possible market manipulation by terrorists.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALVIN C. JAMES, JR.
FORMER SPECIAL AGENT, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Gramm, and Members of the Committee, I am
very pleased to be given this opportunity to speak to you today about money laun-
dering. My name is Alvin James and currently I serve as the leader of the Anti-
Money Laundering Solutions group at Ernst & Young, LLP. However, the views I
am expressing here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst
& Young. Less than 2 years ago, I retired from Federal service after 27 years of
law enforcement within the U.S. Treasury Department. Most of my public service
was spent as a Special Agent with IRS Criminal Investigation Division where I spe-
cialized in international undercover money laundering investigations. I spent the
last 5 years of my Federal law enforcement service at the Financial Crimes Enforce-
ment Network (FinCEN) concluding the last 2 years as their Senior Anti-Money
Laundering Policy Advisor. As this Committee knows, one of the truly unique char-
acteristics of FinCEN is its networking capability. It serves as a sort of hub for rep-
resentatives from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies from across the
United States. It was at the FinCEN that a DEA colleague, Greg Passic, and I col-
laborated on developing a model that explained what is generally recognized as the
largest money laundering system in the Western Hemispherethe Colombia Black
Market Peso Exchange (BMPE). That model, which was developed using law en-
forcement intelligence, describes how this underground financial system works and
identifies vulnerable choke points. During my tenure at FinCEN I also served as
the Founding Chairman of the Treasury Under Secretary for Enforcements BMPE
working group.
Mr. Chairman, most of my testimony today will center on the BMPE as a global
money laundering system. However, I would like to begin with a few remarks to
highlight the use of the BMPE and other underground financial systems by inter-
national terrorists. Terrorists do not usually need to launder money because ter-
rorism, unlike other criminal activity such as narcotics trafficking, does not generate
money. However, terrorists do need to move funds covertly. There are major similar-
ities among all underground financial systemsalso called parallel payment sys-
99
temsincluding the BMPE, Hawala, and the Chinese Underground Banking or Chit
system. The most significant of these similarities is their ability to facilitate anony-
mous international transfers of money. This feature makes these systems attractive
to terrorist groups. We know that they use these systems to covertly move the
money they need to support their activities.
In light of recent events I would caution those who attempt to concentrate U.S.
law enforcement resources on terrorist money laundering. A separate and distinct
system of laundering or hiding money for terrorist activity does not exist. They use
those systems of transferring and hiding funds that are most readily available, dis-
creet, and cheap. The longer we studied BMPE the more evident it became that this
system of money laundering was used for not only a multitude of criminal activities
but also legitimate commerce, capital flight, tax evasion, and the simple transfer of
assets. Recent developments also indicate that BMPE brokers have teamed up in-
creasingly with partners in the Middle East. In addition to typical placement in the
United States, drug dollars are now being deposited in Lebanon, Israel, and Pal-
estine. Persons responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing also received
funds from a BMPE broker working out of Venezuela. I feel that by fully identifying
those individuals, businesses, and banks handling BMPE transactions in the Middle
East, we have an opportunity to flag transactions supporting all types of illegal ac-
tivity including terrorism. Recent U.S. drug money investigations have revealed
laundering through businesses in the Middle East. Some of those individuals are in-
volved in terrorist circles. The knowledge that U.S. investigators gained by tracing
funds generated by the BMPE cells operating in the United States will prove tre-
mendously valuable in developing a workable game plan to pursue terrorist fi-
nances. The BMPE system is funded almost exclusively by drug money while the
other systems that I mentioned are often funded by parallel transactions of legiti-
mate trade. Thus for the BMPE, terrorism is yet another compelling reason to dis-
rupt and ultimately dismantle this purely illegitimate system. In addition, we must
either bring the other systems under close scrutiny and regulation within the
worlds legitimate financial community or dismantle them as well.
The remainder of my testimony will focus on the BMPE as a global money laun-
dering system and the danger it poses to our country, as well as the challenges it
presents to our law enforcement, business, and financial communities. The BMPE
presents numerous dangers to our country. Most directly this system facilitates the
Colombian drug trade by allowing the Colombian drug wholesaler a relatively safe
means to annually convert $5 billion generated by the sale of drugs in the United
States to pesos in Colombia. In turn the BMPE makes these billions of dollars avail-
able as a commodity for sale outside our regulated financial system. There they are
ready for those who need a discreet source of funds that is difficult to trace. As I
mentioned earlier, U.S. law enforcement has evidence that some of these funds have
been purchased in the past by middle-eastern terrorists including those who bombed
the World Trade Center in 1993. The links to possible terrorist funding through the
BMPE are even stronger today since, as we will see, the initial placement of drug
dollars into U.S. financial institutions now begins in nations throughout the world.
The funds are also available to Colombian importers who wish to hide their pur-
chases of U.S. trade goods that they smuggle into their country. This smuggling, to-
tally funded by the BMPE, is so prevalent that the Colombian government is unable
to tax the sales of almost 50 percent of retail goods sold in Colombia. This lack of
legitimate revenue destabilizes the Colombian government and hinders its ability to
fight the narcotics suppliers on their home turf. In addition, Colombias business
community has been destabilized because those businesses that choose to operate
legitimately find it almost impossible to compete with those who sell smuggled
goods. The Colombian drug traffickers are able to use their billions to fund the Co-
lombian rebels who stand between cocaine and heroin production facilities and the
governments of the United States and Colombia who are trying to eliminate the Co-
lombian narcotics business. Finally, the rebels use this drug money not only to fund
their military objectives, but also to finance acts of terrorism aimed at promoting
their cause and hindering their enemies in Colombia.
U.S. law enforcement has the authority, the ability, and the knowledge to severely
disrupt and ultimately dismantle the BMPE. By so doing it would force the drug
traffickers and money launderers to use laundering tactics more vulnerable to law
enforcement. There is considerable evidence that law enforcement can impact the
BMPE system. Vigorous enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and other anti-
money laundering laws have caused the Colombian drug trafficker to be willing to
sell his share of the drug proceeds to the BMPE peso broker for discounts in excess
of 30 percent rather than take the risk of either moving the funds or laundering
them himself in the United States. The application of the Geographic Targeting
Order to the money service businesses in New York City had a dramatic, although
100
short-lived, impact on the ability of the BMPE system to place its drug currency and
then move its funds. Undercover operations designed to infiltrate the BMPE system
have been responsible for a shift away from currency placement in the United
States to placement in foreign locations. However, in spite of these and the numer-
ous other activities that have made up 20 years of law enforcement efforts in this
area, I must also note that the BMPE still remains the primary vehicle used by Co-
lombian traffickers to launder their drug proceeds. Money laundering systems are
like a balloon. If you squeeze them in one place, they just get bigger somewhere
else. The main challenge faced by U.S. law enforcement is to coordinate their activi-
ties in a systemic approach and pop the balloon.
It should be noted that many of our law enforcement efforts have been more nota-
ble for the degree to which they disrupted the system than for the law violators they
brought to trial. However, the BMPE is a financial system and as such it is not de-
pendant on any one individual or group of individuals. Therefore, a plan that is di-
rected entirely toward arresting and prosecuting the drug traffickers and the money
launderers who use this system will not by itself stop the system. The second major
challenge for law enforcement is to place the goal of disruption and dismantlement
of the system on an equal footing with prosecuting the individuals who use it. Of
course, the Congress and the Administration are also challenged to measure their
successes accordingly.
The U.S. financial institutions and their regulators face a different challenge. The
financial community has done a pretty good job of implementing our anti-money
laundering laws. Colombian drug traffickers have virtually stopped laundering their
funds in the United States. They pay a substantial fee to the BMPE peso brokers
to take this high-risk activity off their hands. The funds the brokers cannot handle,
the traffickers smuggle out of the country, but sale to the BMPE is their preferred
method. While the banks have not kept the drug money out of their institutions all
together, they deserve some of the credit for the current shift of drug currency place-
ment from the United States to foreign locations. However, therein also lies their
challenge. A large portion of the drug currency that is being smuggled offshore is
still being placed in the U.S. financial system through the international cor-
respondent banking relationships between the respective foreign banks and their
U.S. correspondent banks. While the front door of our U.S. financial institutions
closes ever more tightly to those who would bring in ill-gotten gains, the back door
of international correspondent banking gapes open. The challenge to U.S. financial
institutions and their regulators is to close the unguarded back door.
Before I discuss these topics in more depth, let me first briefly describe the sys-
tem. The Colombian Black Market Peso Exchange is the most egregious example of
an underground financial system used to launder dirty money. We believe that as
much as $5 billion dollars in Colombian drug proceeds (or about half of U.S. whole-
sale drug proceeds) are laundered per year through this system. There are other un-
derground financial systems or parallel banking systems that operate in much the
same way throughout the world, such as the Hawala system in the Middle East or
the Chinese Underground Banking or Chit system in Asia and the Pacific Rim.
However, the BMPE system is the only one that is funded almost exclusively with
illegal proceeds, namely drug dollars.
The sale of drugs in the United States generates currency. No one uses his or her
checkbook or his or her credit card to buy drugsat, least not yet. Each tier of the
drug sales and distribution organizations in the United States takes their cut of the
cash and passes the remainder up the line. Finally the Colombian suppliers whole-
sale share is amassed in secret stash houses in ports of drug entry such as New
York City, Miami, Houston, Chicago, and Los Angeles. At this point, the Colombian
trafficker has a serious problem. Cash is not only heavier and bulkier than the nar-
cotics he imported but also a more precious commodity. Drug manufacture and sup-
ply operations in Colombia operate at about 30 percent of capacity. Therefore, if a
shipment of drugs is seized, it is easily replaced, but if the money is lost it is irre-
placeable. The Colombian drug traffickers dilemma is to get the value of cash home
to Colombia in pesos without detection by United States or Colombian authorities.
The BMPE peso brokers, always in need of a source of U.S. dollars, were a ready-
made solution. The BMPE has existed since the late 1960s as a means for Colom-
bian importers to pay for U.S. trade goods with dollars while avoiding tariffs
enforced by the Colombian central banking system. The peso brokers provided the
additional service of placing the dollars in the U.S. financial system and transfer-
ring them directly to the U.S. exporter on behalf of the Colombian importer. In the
beginning peso brokers used Colombian exporters of goods to the United States,
such as cut flowers and coffee, as their source of dollars. However, the Colombian
drug traffickers offered the peso broker a deal he could not refuse. The drug dollars
were offered at a substantial discount, as much as 30 percent, to compensate the
101
peso broker for the fact that the dollars he was buying were in the form of currency
and carried considerable risk. The peso brokers began to alter the way they did
business in order to place the drug currency in the U.S. financial system and to
meet the needs of both sets of customers, the Colombian drug trafficker, and the
Colombian importer. Once the process was in place to handle the dirty money, there
was little reason to go back to the old ways and pay full price for the dollars. The
Colombian traffickers could provide a virtually unlimited supply of funds. If fact the
annual wholesale Colombian drug proceeds are estimated to be between $8 and $12
billion. There is only enough demand for dollars through the BMPE to accommodate
about half that amount. The end result is that the BMPE became almost wholly
funded with drug dollars.
As stated earlier, the greatest challenge for law enforcement is the need for a co-
ordinated approach. We have made strides in several areas of BMPE enforcement,
but as yet we have not combined these successes in a coordinated attack on the
BMPE system as a whole. I firmly believe that our only hope to destroy this system
lies in the use of all our tools in a calculated effort to force drug dollars out of the
relative safety of the BMPE and into an arena that offers less security to the drug
trafficker and more susceptibility to law enforcement.
The substantially overlapping money laundering jurisdictions at the Federal,
State, and local levels is fundamentally responsible for the current lack of coordina-
tion in BMPE strategy. Most of our law enforcement agencies in this country have
some form of money laundering jurisdiction. At first glance this looks like optimum
coverage for money laundering enforcement. Let me also say at this point that there
can be no doubt of the will of each and every one of these agencies to do their ut-
most to enforce money laundering laws. However, especially at the Federal level,
law enforcement administration is a competitive endeavor. There are only so many
law enforcement dollars in the Federal budget. Competition for those funds between
the agencies is fierce. This problem is exacerbated by the Federal asset forfeiture
funds that return a proportional share of seized and forfeited funds back to the re-
spective seizing law enforcement agencies. Asset forfeiture is a major part of most
money laundering prosecutions. The ability to return seized assets to individual
agency budgets only serves to fan the fires of competition in money laundering en-
forcement. Our efforts to include BMPE investigations in the National Money Laun-
dering Strategy have not really addressed this problem.
These competitive pressures also work against cooperative investigations and
sharing of information. True sharing of information and full coordination of inves-
tigations is vital if we hope to pop the money laundering balloon. We must get past
the ugly questions of who gets credit for the prosecution or the seized assets. The
BMPE operates on a truly global basis and its only limitation is safety and profit-
ability for its users. It thrives in an environment where its adversary is hindered
by a new set of rules each time a boundary is crossed, whether the boundary is be-
tween agencies, states, or countries. We cannot afford to allow interagency competi-
tion to continue in this already complex enforcement environment.
The second challenge for law enforcement centers on our measure of success in
this area. Our primary focus now is on the prosecution of individuals and the sei-
zure and forfeiture of their assets. Of course, this traditional approach remains an
important leg of any enforcement initiative. However, the BMPE is not dependant
on any individual or group of individuals to continue its operation. It operates on
the demand for dollars available outside the traditional banking system. As long as
those dollars are available and can be supplied safely to the users, the system will
continue to operate. Further the system is large enough and the profits are substan-
tial enough to entice replacements in spite of the risk of arrest and prosecution.
Therefore, individual cases and prosecutions should not be our sole goal or the sole
measure of our efforts in this area. Disruption of the system should be an equally
acceptable goal of law enforcement action. Once again the challenge here is not only
to pursue success along both lines of measurement, but also to do so in a coordi-
nated fashion so as to keep up the pressure on all fronts at one time.
Earlier I spoke about the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its administration by bank
regulators and how our financial institutions have had a profoundly negative impact
on the ability of narcotics traffickers to move their illicit funds through our financial
system. When Colombian narcotics began to arrive on the U.S. drug scene in mass,
the banks in the major entry ports, especially Miami, were literally awash in drug
currency. At the outset drug traffickers were able to bring suitcases of currency into
local banks and wire transfer it wherever they wanted. Law enforcement and bank
regulators raised the alarm and the enforcement of the currency reporting provi-
sions of the BSA came into effect. The effectiveness of that statute and the resolve
of the banking community, as well as the enforcement and regulatory arms of the
Government to keep dirty money out of their institutions has severely dampened the
102
ability of money launderers to use our financial systems. Unfortunately, it has not
been able to keep the dirty money out altogether.
Drug sales generate huge revenues and huge profits. The pressure generated by
the need to move and launder these funds is immense. The BMPE is the primary
vehicle used by Colombian drug traffickers to counter the BSA. In fact the discount
offered by Colombian drug wholesalers to the dollar peso brokers is one measure
of the effectiveness of the BSA. The drug traffickers would rather sell their profits
in U.S. currency at a discount of up to 30 percent than take the risk of laundering
the dollars themselves. In so doing they pass the money laundering enforcement
risk to the dollar peso broker. At first the peso broker was able to place the drug
currency into the U.S. financial institutions by using transactions structured below
the Governments and the banks detection thresholds. But the pressure that drove
the trafficker to sell his funds at a substantial discount has mounted on the peso
broker as well.
The broker has countered the pressure against currency placement in the United
States through the use of international correspondent banking. The susceptibility of
correspondent banking relationships to money laundering has been highlighted in
a report compiled by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senate bill
1371, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, also addresses these weaknesses. The fol-
lowing is an example of money laundering through correspondent banking that re-
lates directly to the BMPE.
The peso brokers have begun to smuggle large amounts of currency to nations
whose banks have correspondent relationships with major U.S. banks. The nations
of choice are those with either lax money laundering laws or lax enforcement of
those laws. In return the foreign bank may sell a U.S. dollar check drawn on the
foreign banks U.S. correspondent account. These dollar delineated bank checks
carry the same weight as fully negotiable cashiers checks in Latin American mar-
kets. Therefore, the checks are readily sold to the Colombian importer as dollar
based financial instruments that are readily acceptable in these Latin markets. The
brokers often go so far as to have the checks drafted with the name of the respective
payee specified by the Colombian importer. The foreign bank may also accept the
currency deposit and then order a wire transfer from their correspondent account
to the account designated by the depositor.
The foreign bank is left with a large amount of U.S. currency and no bank wants
to keep excess currency on hand. Since they do not have an account with the Fed-
eral Reserve, they get rid of the excess by sending a deposit of currency to their
correspondent bank. This replaces the funds withdrawn by the check sold and elimi-
nates the excess currency problem. The effect of this transaction is that we are back
to suitcase deposits of U.S. drug currency into our financial system. The only dif-
ference is that the dollar peso broker uses the correspondent back door to the bank
rather than the front door in Miami or New York.
The BSA has worked in that we have begun to force the dollar peso brokers to
move their money offshore rather than structure the deposits here in the United
States. The challenge presented to banking community and their regulators is to
keep up the pressure in the United States while also keeping drug currency place-
ment out of their correspondent institutions as well. Law enforcement sources have
noted an increase in correspondent BMPE activity in Haiti, Guatemala, the Domini-
can Republic, Venezuela, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, and Australia. When one views
this list it is easy to see that these dollars can be made available to individuals with
much more heinous purposes in mind than smuggling duty-free refrigerators into
Colombia. The BMPE is a global problem calling for global coordination. Given the
recent terrorist acts, it is even more imperative that we force these billions of dol-
lars out of this system that can make them so easily available on a truly global
basis to anyone with a need for covert funds.
In conclusion, I would like to restate that our Government has the ability, the au-
thority, and the knowledge to take action now against the BMPE. The question is
how do we bring our forces to bear in such a way that the BMPE will be disman-
tled? I believe the answer lies in eliminating the problems brought on by frag-
mented anti-money laundering jurisdiction. I suggest that this can be accomplished
by the creation of a special task force at the highest possible level, which would
have the charge to coordinate and direct our law enforcement efforts against the
BMPE and other underground financial systems. The most important first step for
this task force is to create a single repository for law enforcement money laundering
intelligence. This repository must include a method to retrieve even the most sen-
sitive law enforcement information on a real time basis. If we ever hope to truly
dismantle these systems we must put this most valuable recourse in the hands of
a task force that is responsible for the big picture. In addition, once they have this
information, they must have the authority to disseminate it, as they deem appro-
103
priate for their mission. The task force should also have the power to take action
on their own or direct the efforts of other law enforcement operations working along
these lines. Law enforcement has seen the need for this type of combined effort, but
to date they have been unable to achieve the desired level of cooperation. I believe
a high level task force will achieve the sought after results.
That concludes my testimony.
104
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CARPER
FROM JIMMY GURULE
Q.1. It is my understanding that the U.S. Customs Service lacks
the clear authority to inspect mail and other postal items leaving
the United States. Given that money laundering activity and the
exportation of other contraband could be facilitated by the use of
the U.S. mail, what are Treasury and the Administration doing to
close this loophole, and grant Customs the authority to inspect out-
bound postal items?
A.1. Outbound international mail has been treated as exempt from
inspection, because of Postal Service insistence that its laws pre-
clude Customs border search of such mail. This has created the
possibility that outbound mail is being used to facilitate major vio-
lations of U.S. law. The violations can range from the unreported
exportation of currency and other monetary instruments to stra-
tegic merchandise and intellectual property rights infringement.
U.S. mail shipments are the only shipments leaving the country,
other than diplomatic pouches, that are not subject to Customs ex-
amination.
U.S. Postal Services and Customs legal positions with respect to
this issue are exhaustively documented. Customs asserts authority
to search all mail leaving the country, under 31 U.S.C. 5317(b),
which authorizes Customs officers to stop and search items includ-
ing envelopes entering and leaving the country without a war-
rant. The Postal Service maintains that 39 U.S.C. 3623(d), which
requires the Postal Service to maintain at least one class of mail
of domestic origin that is sealed against inspection without a
search warrant, directly conflicts with the authority in 31 U.S.C.
5317.
U.S. Customs Service has intensified their efforts to obtain out-
bound search authority. There has been movement on Capitol Hill
during this session to enact legislation granting outbound search
authority of U.S. mail by U.S. Customs.
Currently, Customs has internal procedures and policies in place
on the search of outbound mail.
Q.2. I understand that U.S. Customs does all of its enforcement
and security targeting on international shipments arriving in the
United States by running computer checks against the sender, the
recipient, the description of the contents, the country of origin, etc.
I also understand that some international carriers provide this in-
formation electronically to Customs in advance of shipment arrival,
while some do not, including the U.S. Postal Service.
a). Can Customs get accurate content information from the Post-
al Service?
b). If not, what impact does this have on Customs ability to in-
spect and screen items entering the United States via the U.S.
Postal Service?
A.2.a. At this time, the Postal Service does not provide content in-
formation to Customs either electronically or in hard copy format.
Rather, the content information is provided on a Customs declara-
tion attached to each item, which is prepared by the individuals
sending the parcel, not by the Postal Service. Customs personnel
105
must manually review these items and declarations to determine

which will be inspected, which greatly slows the process.
The Postal Service is dependent upon the electronic capabilities
of the originating countries, which vary dramatically. In addition,
the customer base for international mail is overwhelmingly indi-
vidual to individual, while Express Consignment Operators carry
primarily business to business, which is more easily electronically
manifested.
The U.S. Customs Service has the ability to perform enforcement
and security checks on inbound international shipments. Advance
information pertaining to some cargo shipments is provided elec-
tronically by some international carriers. This information in-
cludes, but is not limited to, the name and address of the foreign
shipper and consignee, a description of the items contained in the
shipment, the country of origin, and the value. In the Express Con-
signment Operator environment, advance information is provided
to Customs electronically, as well as hard copy computer printouts.
With the Postal Service, enforcement and security checks must be
performed based on a manual review of Customs declarations in
real time.
A.2.b. The current process requires Customs personnel to manu-
ally review each parcel and accompanying declaration, delaying fa-
cilitation. An advantage to advance information is that it allows
Customs to perform their inbound inspections more efficiently.
Most Express Consignment Operators present their manifests to
Customs while the conveyance is en route to the United States.
Customs reviews the manifest data to identify those shipments
that are to be examined.
Ideally, Customs would like advance information on all ship-
ments. This serves the interests of both Customs and the Postal
Service, enabling both agencies to utilize its limited resources to
conduct searches and clearances on those requiring immediate at-
tention, without delaying those items not needing review.
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - The Administration's National Money Laundering Strategy For 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - The Administration's National Money Laundering Strategy For 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - The Administration's National Money Laundering Strategy For 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

THE ADMINISTRATIONS NATIONAL

THE EXAMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS NATIONAL STRATEGY

SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

Carl Levin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ....................................... 4

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

nancial system can be exploited, although I might note that this

This is obviously the time to move forward decisively to address

So let me say that I think the most important thing we can do

that as we speak. But the website of the Al Shamal Bank shows

I think it is time to get tough. Fair but tough. We have the

Senator Grassley has played a very pivotal role in increasing

government, we respect bankers relationships with each other.

which you have nothere is no long-arm reach, and so forth, stat-

Senator SCHUMER. Which is to say, if a large country with a so-

lent war on the financial assets of those who so cowardly attacked

introducing the Foreign Money Laundering Deterrence and Anti-

First, as I mentioned, we need to look closely at the activities of

Gurule , and Michael Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General for

STATEMENT OF JIMMY GURULE

plomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforce-

With respect to the 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy,

the strategy is not working, then it should be discarded and we

Chairman SARBANES. It is your intention to work with the pri-

have relationships with organized crime. So that we cannot simply

Mr. CHERTOFF. I would like to add that one additional approach

that the courts have upheld. We are modernizing and improving,

The world is different. As a result of the events of September 11,

Senator ALLARD. What is your solution? Are you suggesting that

have reason to believe that the particular transaction is suspicious

of supervision, particularly with respect to deposit activity. And

often use various kinds of derivatives as a way of profiting from ac-

countries, et cetera. Would you gentlemen want to comment on

Money laundering also affects the vitality of our goods as the

special scrutiny in dealing with foreign officials, their relatives and

on American citizens. It is on foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial

global criminal economy and the growth of organized criminal

Chairman SARBANES. Good. I appreciate that. I know you are

And third, the very legislation expands the nondisclosure rules of

He also led the Senates investigation of BCCI in the late 1980s

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. WECHSLER

It is very nice if sometimes funds are actually found in the

terrorist finances do not. Financial regulations and enforcement

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I believe if we are to stop terrorist money move-

that person in the Middle East would go to a Hawala broker with

So unlike we would think in the western sense where you need

Pakistan. If I send the money through the formal banking system,

tigating this, together with my colleague to my left, Mr. James and

in the gum arabic business, which are ingredient in most tonics or

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING