Danske Bank: Part 2 – Jurisdiction | Thomas Fox – Compliance Evangelist

We finally have the big one in money laundering. That, of course, is Danske Bank A/S (Danske Bank), a global financial institution headquartered in Denmark, which pled guilty this week and agreed to forfeit $2 billion to resolve the US investigation into its fraud on US banks. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release, “Danske Bank defrauded U.S. banks regarding Danske Bank Estonia’s customers and anti-money laundering controls to facilitate access to the U.S. financial system for Danske Bank Estonia’s high-risk customers, who resided outside of Estonia – including in Russia.” Danske Bank also settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who said, in their Press Release, the Bank misled investors about its anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program in its Estonian branch and failed to disclose the risks posed by the program’s significant deficiencies.

One might reasonably ask why the US government is bringing this action. I think there are two key reasons. First, only the US has the cache to bring such a massive enforcement action against any bank, wherever they are domiciled, which threatens the world’s financial integrity through multiple years of facilitating money laundering. The second is that as the world’s principal financial leader, the US government sees itself as the protector and enforcer of that system. While many outside the US may decry these realities, it is clear that only the US can lead such an action. There certainly were other countries which participated, as both the DOJ and SEC Press Releases noted the cooperation of Denmark and Estonia in this enforcement action but at the end of the day, it had to be led by the US.


Even if the US feels that it should lead an enforcement effort in this affront to international law, there still must be jurisdiction to bring these enforcement actions. According to the SEC Complaint, “Danske is a Danish multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark. At all relevant times, Danske was the largest bank in Denmark and a major retail bank in Northern Europe, with offices in countries outside Denmark.” However, I was somewhat surprised to learn that “Danske’s shares traded in Denmark on the OMX Copenhagen and in the United States over-the- counter (“OTC”) as American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) listed in U.S. dollars, and U.S. investors constituted a significant portion of Danske’s shareholders. Between 2009 and 2018, U.S. shareholders held as much as 18% of Danske’s stock.”

This stock sold in the US warranted regulatory protection of US investors. The SEC Complaint went on to note that Danske Bank “engaged in deceptive acts, including misleading Danish regulators and U.S. correspondent banks, to conceal its AML and KYC deficiencies. Danske stopped providing services to its high risk customers by April 2016 but failed to timely disclose to investors known misconduct and widespread AML failures.” These failures to inform investors took the form of “a variety of reports, including annual, interim, corporate governance, and risk management reports, in English on its corporate website for the benefit of and made available to, inter alia, actual and prospective U.S. investors. Certain of these reports contained representations to investors about Danske’s risk management processes and disciplines related to the banks systems and controls. Such systems and controls would include Danske’s policies and procedures to detect, prevent and mitigate risks to the bank from financial crime, including money laundering.” Finally, the harm from the illegal conduct hit US investors as “between September 2017 and November 1, 2018, Danske’s share price dropped by approximately 49% as the full extent of Danske’s misconduct became apparent.”

The only reference to US jurisdiction from the DOJ came in the Plea Agreement which obliquely noted Danske Bank “engaged in suspicious transactions through U.S. banks.”

We rarely take a deep dive into the jurisdiction which allows a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other similar action to be brought in the US. However, the Danske Bank AML enforcement action makes clear that simply because a company is domiciled outside the US, if it does business internationally, there may be multiple US jurisdiction points which could allow US authorities to bring an enforcement action.

Tomorrow, where did it all start and what were the AML compliance program failures?

[View source.]