© 2015 International Monetary Fund 

IMF Country Report No. 15/174 

UNITED STATES 

FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COMBATING THE 

FINANCING OF TERRORISM (AML/CFT)—TECHNICAL 

NOTE 

This Technical Note on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of 

Terrorism (AML/CFT) on the United States was prepared by a staff team of the 

International Monetary Fund. It is based on the information available at the time it was 

completed in June 2015. 

Copies of this report are available to the public from 

International Monetary Fund  Publication Services 

PO Box 92780  Washington, D.C. 20090 

Telephone: (202) 623-7430  Fax: (202) 623-7201 

E-mail: publications@imf.org Web: http://www.imf.org 

Price: $18.00 per printed copy 

International Monetary Fund 

Washington, D.C. 

July 2015 
UNITED STATES 

FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

TECHNICAL NOTE

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COMBATING THE 

FINANCING OF TERRORISM (AML/CFT) 

Prepared By

Legal Department

This Technical Note was prepared in the context of an 

IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) 

mission to the United States of America, led by Aditya 

Narain and overseen by the Monetary and Capital 

Markets Department, IMF. Further information on the 

FSAP can be found at 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/fsap/fssa.aspx

June 2015
UNITED STATES

2 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

 CONTENTS

GLOSSARY ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY______________________________________________________________________________ 4

INTRODUCTION_____________________________________________________________________________________ 6

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. AML/CFT FRAMEWORK _______________________________________ 7

TRANSPARENCY AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF U.S. LEGAL PERSONS AND 

ARRANGEMENTS____________________________________________________________________________________ 8

A. Background and Risk ______________________________________________________________________________ 8

B. Main Findings of the 2006 MER ___________________________________________________________________ 10

C. Developments since the 2006 MER _______________________________________________________________ 10

D. Collecting, accessing, and sharing information about beneficial ownership_______________________ 12

E. Recommendations ________________________________________________________________________________ 17

TABLE

1. Main Recommendations for AML/CFT _____________________________________________________________ 5
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 3

Glossary

AML Anti-money laundering

BO Beneficial ownership

CDD Customer due diligence

CFT Combating the financing of terrorism

DNFBP Designated non-financial business and profession

EIN Employer Identification Number

FATF Financial Action Task Force

FI Financial institution

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

FSAP Financial Sector Assessment Program

FT Financing of terrorism

IRS Internal Revenue Service

LEA Law enforcement authority

MER Mutual Evaluation Report

ML Money laundering

NRPM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SAR Suspicious activity report

TCSP Trust and company service provider

TN Technical note

U.S. United States
UNITED STATES

4 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

This note sets out the findings and recommendations made in the Financial Sector 

Assessment Program (FSAP) for the United States in the areas of anti-money laundering and 

combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). It summarizes the findings of a targeted review 

of measures to prevent U.S. legal persons and arrangements from being misused for money 

laundering (ML)/financing of terrorism (FT). This discussion is not, in any way, an evaluation or 

assessment of the U.S. AML/CFT system. The United States will undergo a complete mutual 

evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) beginning June 1, 2015, the results of which will 

be made public in 2016.

The last FATF assessment in 2006 found that the United States had implemented an AML/CFT 

system that was broadly in line with the international standard, although a significant

shortcoming was identified. The United States had significantly strengthened its AML/CFT regime 

since the previous mutual evaluation, including through enhanced legislation. However, there was a 

notable shortcoming with respect to the Recommendation addressing customer due diligence (CDD) 

which is one of the FATF’s core Recommendations. There were also other deficiencies regarding the 

availability of ownership information about corporations and trusts, and the requirements applicable 

to certain designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs).

The U.S. AML/CFT legal and institutional framework has yet to address deficiencies identified 

in the most recent FATF mutual evaluation report (MER) regarding ownership information for 

U.S. corporations and trusts; in particular more rapid progress is needed to enhance 

transparency of legal persons to bolster financial system integrity. Trusts have a different legal 

and institutional framework. Draft regulations have been produced to strengthen financial 

institutions’ (FIs) obligations to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners and policy 

intentions announced to improve the authorities’ access to information on the beneficial ownership

(BO) and control of U.S. corporations. These measures—to address deficiencies identified in the last

FATF MER of June 2006—are progressing slowly. However, in 2010 U.S. tax authorities began 

requiring information that includes some BO information from legal entities and trusts applying for 

an Employer Identification Number (EIN), which is required when they have income, employees, or 

are otherwise required to file any documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or open an 

account with an FI. Nonetheless, deficiencies remain, and even when completed, the intended 

changes may not completely address all of the deficiencies cited in the last FATF mutual evaluation

report. 

The approach taken by law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to access BO information—relying 

largely on a wide range of investigative powers and techniques— while often successful 

cannot always ensure timely access to current BO information of all U.S. corporations. The 

 

1

This note was prepared by Ke Chen, Stephen Dawe, and Gianluca Esposito (all IMF’s Legal Department).
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 5

inability to access accurate BO information directly from states, FIs or agents serving corporations or 

trusts may curtail how effective the authorities can be in pursuing criminally persons who misuse 

U.S. corporations to launder proceeds generated domestically as well as abroad or to trace and 

recover their illicit assets. This includes laundering associated with taxes evaded in the United States2

and abroad, by U.S. citizens and foreigners respectively, and to cooperate effectively with their 

foreign counterparts in this regard.

Table 1. Main Recommendations for AML/CFT

Recommendations Priority

Expeditiously take steps to ensure that beneficial ownership information of U.S. corporations 

and trusts can be accessed by the authorities in a timely manner, in particular by:

i. requiring that such information is collected and maintained by either registries of 

corporations and trusts, agents serving corporations and trusts, or corporations and 

trusts, and is accessible by competent authorities in a timely manner; and

ii. requiring all FIs and DNFBPs, in particular trust and company service providers 

(TCSPs), including lawyers and accountants providing such services, to identify the 

beneficial owners of corporations and trusts and take reasonable measures to verify

those identities.

Make serious tax crimes predicate crimes to ML.

High

High

Medium

 

2

The amount laundered from taxes evaded in the United States may be substantial. Serious tax crimes are not 

predicate crimes to ML. The authorities estimated the U.S. net tax gap to be around $450 billion in 2006, excluding 

international tax evasion, and tax crimes for state taxes. 
UNITED STATES

6 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

INTRODUCTION

1. This Technical Note (TN) provides a targeted review of U.S. Anti-Money 

Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) system in the context of the 

Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP).

3

It builds upon a previous TN that accompanied the 

U.S. 2010 FSAP.4This review is not, in any way, an assessment or evaluation of the U.S. AML/CFT 

system. A comprehensive assessment against the current FATF Recommendations will be available in 

2016 (i.e. after the completion of this FSAP) when the FATF is expected to conclude its mutual 

evaluation of the U.S. AML/CFT system. 

2. As discussed with the authorities prior to the beginning of this exercise, staff’s review 

focused mainly on the United States’ progress in enhancing the transparency of and access to 

beneficial ownership (BO) information of U.S. companies and trusts, at both the federal and 

state levels, to prevent their potential misuse for ML/FT purposes both by U.S. and foreign persons. 

This represents a vulnerability that was identified in the 2006 mutual evaluation report (MER) of the 

U.S. system5that has potential ramifications for the effectiveness of the U.S. AML/CFT regime as well 

as potential spillovers for other jurisdictions.

3. Staff’s analysis was based on a range of material. Staff reviewed available information

(including information submitted by the United States to the FATF on progress made since 2006, 

and to the IMF during the 2010 U.S. FSAP), answers provided by the authorities to questions 

submitted ahead of the FSAP, and held brief discussions during a mission undertaken in February 

and March, 2015.

6

 

3 Under FSAP policy, every FSAP should incorporate timely and accurate input on AML/CFT issues. Where possible, 

this input should be based on a comprehensive AML/CFT assessment conducted against the prevailing standard. In 

instances where a comprehensive assessment against the prevailing standard is not available at the time of the FSAP, 

(as is the case with the United States) staff may derive key findings on the basis of other sources of information, 

including already available information or information obtained in the context of the FSAP. See the Acting Chair’s 

Summing Up—Review of the Fund’s Strategy on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism—

Executive Board Meeting 14/22, March 12, 2014( http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2014/pr14167.htm).

4 United States: Technical Note on Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism, IMF Country 

Report No. 10/253, July 2010. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10253.pdf. 

5

The United States’ AML/CFT system is currently undergoing a 4th round mutual evaluation. The previous MER was 

adopted and published in 2006—see http://www.fatfgafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/MER%20US%20full.pdf. The assessment was conducted jointly by the 

FATF and the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering against the 2003 FATF 40+9 Recommendations and on the 

basis of the corresponding assessment methodology. The United States is expected to undergo a comprehensive 

assessment against the FATF’s revised standard and methodology beginning June 1, 2015. An onsite mission is 

planned for early 2016, with plenary consideration of the draft MER scheduled for October 2016.

6

Staff conducted one meeting comprising representatives of the U.S. Treasury (Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—

Criminal Investigation; Terrorism, and Financial Intelligence; International Affairs); the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Asset Forfeiture and ML Section; National Security Division; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement 

Administration), and the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service); and a teleconference with 

(continued)
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 7

4. During the review, staff also discussed some aspects of the U.S. efforts to identify, 

understand, assess and mitigate ML/FT risks, but the discussions were inconclusive and did not 

generate findings of a nature to be included in the TN.

5. The TN is structured as follows: It first provides a general overview of the U.S. AML/CFT 

framework. It then sets out staff’s analysis of the situation concerning transparency and beneficial 

ownership of U.S. legal persons and arrangements, including key findings and recommendations. 

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. AML/CFT 

FRAMEWORK

6. The United States has a mature legal and institutional AML/CFT framework, having 

first criminalized money laundering in 1986. The framework covers most requirements of the 

FATF recommendations. There are many agencies involved in combating ML and FT at both federal 

and state levels encompassing regulatory, law enforcement, prosecutorial, and other roles. The 

United States is a founding member of the FATF, and has undergone three assessments against the 

FATF Recommendations.

7. The FATF assessment in 2006 found that the United States had implemented an 

AML/CFT system that was broadly in line with the international standard. It had significantly 

strengthened its AML/CFT regime since the previous mutual evaluation (June 1997), including 

through enhanced legislation, subjecting most deposit-taking institutions to the full range of 

AML/CFT requirements, aggressive law enforcement action, and good cooperation domestically and 

internationally. 

8. However, shortcomings were identified, notably in relation to some specific 

requirements for undertaking customer due diligence (CDD), the availability of corporate 

ownership information, and the requirements applicable to certain designated non-financial 

businesses and professions (DNFBPs).

7

In relation to CDD, the evaluators determined that not all 

requirements were imposed on FIs using instruments that complied technically with the FATF 

standard and also concluded that there were no requirements for FIs to look beyond a customer to 

establish the identity of the beneficial owners in all cases.8The evaluators found that the United 

States’ compliance with the two recommendations dealing with the transparency of legal persons 

 

representatives of: U.S. Treasury and IRS (Policy & Support Unit, International Operations Unit and Financial Crimes 

Unit).

7 DNFBPs, under the FATF standard, are the following businesses and professions in relation to certain transactions: 

casinos, real estate agents, dealers in precious metals, dealers in precious stones, lawyers, notaries, other 

independent legal professionals, accountants, and trust and company service providers.

8

Beneficial owners refer to the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a customer and/or the natural 

person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted.
UNITED STATES

8 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

and arrangements was very weak and rated both as non-compliant. In relation to DNFBPs, the 

United States was found to be non-compliant with the FATF recommendations relating to CDD, 

recordkeeping, suspicious transaction reporting, and internal controls and partially compliant with 

the Recommendation on regulation and supervision.

9. Fund staff, in a TN prepared in the context of the 2010 U.S. FSAP, reported some 

strengthening of the regime, but also a lack of progress in addressing key deficiencies.9The 

2010 TN reported on some enhancements to legislation and the continuation of aggressive law 

enforcement action. It also reported that identified deficiencies relating to CDD, coverage of DNFBPs, 

and the availability of BO information for legal persons and arrangements remained.

10. FATF also determined that the United States did not substantially address the 

identified shortcomings since the 2006 mutual evaluation. Under FATF procedures for its third 

round of mutual evaluations countries were required to report back to the FATF on steps taken to 

address deficiencies noted in their MERs with respect to the Recommendations that were rated as 

partially compliant or non-compliant. In the case of the United States, these were Recommendations 

on CDD for FIs, CDD and recordkeeping for DNFBPs, suspicious transaction reporting and internal 

controls for DNFBPs, regulation and supervision of DNFBPs, transparency of legal persons, and 

transparency of legal arrangements. Following the 2006 mutual evaluation, the FATF required the 

United States to report on progress addressing its deficiencies. The third round follow-up process 

was postponed pending the outcome of the U.S. fourth round mutual evaluation, which began on 

June 1.

TRANSPARENCY AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF 

U.S. LEGAL PERSONS AND ARRANGEMENTS

11. This section reports on the extent to which the authorities are preventing the abuse of 

U.S. corporations and trusts for ML/FT. It begins by describing the types of corporations and 

trusts existing in the United States and their ML/FT risk profiles. It then describes the main findings 

of the 2006 MER relating to corporations and trusts, progress since then to address identified 

deficiencies, and then follows with a fuller discussion about the current situation regarding the 

collection of and access to BO information about U.S. corporations and trusts and sharing that 

information with foreign authorities. It concludes with some recommendations.

A. Background and Risk

12. Broadly speaking, there are three main types of legal persons and arrangements in the 

United States: corporations (including limited liabilities companies),

10 partnerships,11 and 

 

9 United States: Technical Note on Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism, IMF Country 

Report No. 10/253, July 2010. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10253.pdf. 

10 Limited liability companies are a hybrid of a corporation and a partnership designed to provide its owners (called 

“members”) with the limited liability enjoyed by corporate stockholders and the greater economic flexibility ordinarily 

(continued)
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 9

trusts.12 More than 30 million legal persons and arrangements exist, but the precise figure is 

unknown. They are also able to be owned or controlled by non-residents, but the extent of such 

ownership is also unknown. The following discussions on corporations focus on those that are not 

publicly traded.13

13. It has been long recognized that U.S. corporations may be misused for ML and related 

predicate crimes, both by U.S. and foreign persons. The 2006 MER noted that a threat 

assessment identified the formation of shell companies within certain states as a serious cause for 

concern,

14 and there is general agreement among LEAs that, while the vast majority of corporations 

pursue legal activities, others are being misused for ML (including laundering of proceeds from 

foreign offenses) and related predicate crimes.

15 As identified by the authorities, corporations may 

be used as a front to open bank accounts without revealing the identity of the individuals who own 

or control the account, and corporate vehicles are a common method used to place, layer, and 

integrate illicit proceeds in the financial system.16 The authorities indicated that they reviewed MLrelated indictments from 2006 to 2012 and found many cases involving the use of corporations.

14. In contrast, trusts are generally considered by most authorities to pose low ML/FT 

risks. In the United States, a trust is a legal arrangement created between two private persons or a 

private person and a trust company under state law. Trust companies are authorized to act in a 

fiduciary (i.e., trustee) capacity and are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act.

17 However, lawyers and 

accountants who assist with setting up trusts are unregulated for AML/CFT. The LEAs who met with 

the mission are of the view that trusts are not particularly attractive vehicles to those wishing to hide 

their activities, particularly compared to corporations, because of tax reporting obligations. However, 

 

associated with a partnership arrangement. For the purpose of this TN, references to “corporations” should be read

to include limited liability companies and as equivalent to “companies” in the FATF standard.

11 A general partnership is a relationship between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or business. Each 

person contributes money, property, labor, or skill, and expects to share in the profits and losses of the business. 

There are also limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability limited partnerships. This TN 

does not discuss any of these types of partnerships.

12 A trust is essentially a contractual agreement typically between two private persons or between a private person 

and a trust company.

13 See paragraphs 1,000 and 1,001 of the 2006 MER. The United States imposes reporting requirements on beneficial 

ownership at the federal level for companies (both domestic and foreign) that offer securities to the public, or whose 

securities are listed on a U.S. stock exchange. However, these account for a rather small portion of all active legal 

entities registered in the United States.

14 See paragraph 889 of the 2006 MER.

15 See for example, commentary in relation to “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions, Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making”. Federal Register 79 (August 4, 2014), 45153.

16 For instance, the lack of transparency in the formation and operation of shell companies may be a desired 

characteristic for certain legitimate business activity, but it is also a vulnerability that allows these companies to 

disguise their ownership and purpose (see FIN-2006-G014).

17 See paragraphs 52 and 1,030–1,031 of the 2006 MER.
UNITED STATES

10 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

some authorities believe that the ML/FT risks posed by trusts are not necessarily lower. 18 The 

mission was unable to access more information about the ML/FT risks posed by trusts governed by 

U.S. laws.

B. Main Findings of the 2006 MER

15. The 2006 MER found that FIs were not required to identify beneficial owners, 

including in relation to corporations and trusts, in accordance with FATF CDD requirements

except in limited specific circumstances (i.e. correspondent banking and private banking for nonU.S. clients).

16. The 2006 MER rated the United States noncompliant with the FATF Recommendation

concerning transparency and BO of corporations. The evaluators noted that, while investigative 

powers are generally sound and widely used, there were no measures in place to ensure that there is

adequate, accurate, and timely information on the BO of corporations that can be obtained or 

accessed in a timely fashion by competent authorities. This finding was subsequently underscored 

by a number of Senate testimonies that consistently pointed to the lack of transparency in the

corporate formation process as inhibiting law enforcement efforts.

19

17. The United States was also rated as noncompliant with the FATF Recommendation 

concerning transparency and BO of legal arrangements in the 2006 MER. The evaluators noted 

that, while investigative powers were generally sound and widely used, there was minimal 

information on BO of trusts that can be obtained or accessed by the competent authorities in a 

timely fashion.

C. Developments since the 2006 MER

18. The United States has made efforts aimed at strengthening the legal and regulatory 

frameworks with a view to enhancing transparency of corporations since the 2006 MER, but in 

substance, there has been no real progress. These efforts have included:

 In 2010, the IRS revised form SS-4 which is used to request an Employer Identification 

Number (EIN), including by corporations and trusts. The revised SS-4 now requires the 

applicant to provide the name of a “responsible party.” This is the party that controls, 

manages, or directs the entity and the disposition of its funds and assets. All EIN applications 

must disclose the name and the Taxpayer Identification Number of the responsible party.

 

18 See “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions, Notice of Proposed Rule Making”. Federal 

Register 79 (August 4, 2014), 45160. 

19 For example, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials testified before the Senate Committee 

(June 2009) that the lack of information available on the true ownership and control of shell companies adversely 

affects the effectiveness of international cooperation because it “...limits our abilities to work jointly with our 

international law enforcement partners and can inhibit our ability to take quick action where it may be required.”
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 11

 Subsequently, the White House included in its 2015 and 2016 budget proposals an initiative, 

which, according to the authorities, would allow LEAs access to the SS-4 information in 

certain circumstances and impose AML/CFT obligations on company service providers.20

However, the initiative has its limitations, including that the IRS would only be able to share 

information to help with domestic and not foreign-based ML/FT investigations, and the 

proposal does not seek to make BO information available to FIs or DNFBPs, so does not 

assist them with their efforts to verify BO of corporate customers and commercial trusts.

 In March 2010, a multi-agency guidance (Guidance on Obtaining and Retaining Beneficial 

Ownership Information) was issued that seeks to clarify and consolidate “existing regulatory 

expectations” for obtaining BO information for “certain accounts and customer 

relationships”.

21

 Developing regulations to strengthen the CDD requirements for FIs, including in relation to 

collection of BO information. This eventually led to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(NPRM), titled “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions”22, being 

issued on August 4, 2014 for public comment. A preliminary analysis of the NPRM 

conducted by the FATF Secretariat indicates that FATF does not consider the proposed rules, 

as drafted, are fully in line with its standard.23 In addition, staff notes that the form entitled 

“certification of beneficial owners” introduced as part of the NPRM appears not to fully 

capture the control component of the proposed definition for beneficial owners.24

19. The most recent efforts, including the NPRM and the White House budget 

announcements, are not likely to be enacted in the foreseeable future. The rules proposed in 

 

20 As indicated by the authorities, the initiatives would require all corporations formed in the U.S. to obtain an EIN, 

and allow the IRS to share the ownership information from the EIN process with other LEAs without a court order to 

combat ML, FT, and other financial crimes. In addition, the proposal would authorize the U.S. Treasury to impose 

AML/CFT obligations on persons in the business of forming corporations. And while this would apply to company 

formation services offered by lawyers and accountants, it would not extend AML/CFT obligations to other services 

offered by them as required by the FATF Recommendations. It would establish standards for states to improve their 

regulation and oversight of the incorporation process, including to standardize the collection of “basic” ownership 

information (defined below).

21 Although this Guidance is likely helpful, it, as indicated in its text, does not “alter or supersede previously issued 

regulations, rulings, or guidance related to Customer Identification Program requirements.”

22 79 F.R. 45151 (Aug. 4, 2014). (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-10/pdf/2012-11227.pdf).

23 The Secretariat noted that the NPRM proposed rules to clarify and strengthen CDD requirements for banks, 

brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, futures commission merchants, and introducing brokers in 

commodities, including to identify and collect BO information on owners and managers of legal entity customers, 

subject to certain exemptions. However, insurance companies or brokers, money or value transfer services, foreign 

exchange bureaus, investment advisers and commodity trading advisors, and DNFBPs, including TCSPs, are not 

covered by the proposed requirements. In addition, staff notes that the proposed obligation to for FIs to verify the 

identity of beneficial owners places a lot of reliance on customers’ own certification.

24 For control it focuses on those who manage the corporation and does not require the names of those who control 

the corporation through other means unless such control flows from owning 25 percent or more of the corporation’s 

equity.
UNITED STATES

12 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

the NPRM have not been finalized, and it is unclear when and in what form they might take effect. 

The comment period for the NPRM closed on October 3, 2014. Once analysis of the comments 

received is complete, the authorities will determine how best to address the issues raised in the 

comments and the appropriate next steps in the rulemaking process. Significant changes to the 

NPRM, if necessary, could require an additional period to allow for further public comments. There is 

no estimate for when the budget announcements will be turned into concrete legislative proposals.

D. Collecting, accessing, and sharing information about beneficial 

ownership

Information available about ownership of U.S. corporations and trusts

20. The formation, operation, and dissolution of U.S. corporations are governed by state 

law, and some basic information25 is collected and maintained by corporation registries at the 

state level. Forming a corporation in the United States is usually a simple process; the mechanics 

vary from state to state, although they are usually quite similar. Every state requires the filing of a 

corporate governance document (called the "articles of incorporation,” “certificate of incorporation,” 

or “charter”) with a state official (usually the Secretary of State). In many states, filed documents are 

not required to contain all the basic information (such as legal ownership) required by the FATF,

26

especially in states that have a strategy of promoting corporation formation by non-residents. These 

states also tend to require less information (including, in some cases, not to share corporate income 

tax information with the IRS), charge only minimal fees, and heavily involve incorporation service 

providers (agents) to assist the incorporating process, in some cases acting as nominee 

shareholders.27 The Office of the Secretary of State reviews each filing to ensure that it meets the 

state’s statutory requirements; however, the information contained in the filing is generally not 

verified. All information collected during the process is maintained at the state corporation registries 

 

25 In terms of FATF Recommendation 24, basic information includes: (i) company name, proof of incorporation, legal 

form and status, the address of the registered office, basic regulating powers (e.g. memorandum & articles of 

association), a list of directors; and (ii) a register of its shareholders or members, containing the names of the 

shareholders and members and number of shares held by each shareholder and categories of shares (including the 

nature of the associated voting rights).

26 Fourteen states impose no requirement to report the identities of either shareholders or managers: (Arkansas, 

Mississippi, Colorado, Missouri, Delaware, New York, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Oklahoma, Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Michigan, and Virginia); eight states and the District of Columbia require a limited liability company to report the 

identities of managers only: (Massachusetts, Tennessee, North Carolina, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, South 

Carolina, the District of Columbia, and South Dakota); twenty-four states require a limited liability company to report 

the identities of shareholders, but only when the limited liability company lacks managers: (California, Nebraska, 

Connecticut, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Georgia, New Jersey, Hawaii, New Mexico, Idaho, North Dakota, 

Illinois, Oregon, Kentucky, Texas, Louisiana, Utah, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, West Virginia, Montana, and 

Wyoming). Only four states require a limited liability company to always report the identities of shareholders: 

(Alabama, Arizona, Alaska, and Kansas). On the other hand, the authorities indicated that in periodic reports 45 

states require corporations to collect the names and addresses of officers and/or directors, and 32 states require 

limited liability corporations to collect the names and addresses of members or managers.

27 See case studies on pages 231–235 of the 2006 MER and Chapter 7 of the 2005 U.S. ML Threat Assessment.
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 13

and is mostly publicly available. Trusts are not required to be registered except for filing certain 

information with the IRS (discussed below). 

21. States corporation registries and incorporation agents are not currently collecting BO

information, but some of this information may be collected by the IRS in certain 

circumstances.

28 When U.S. corporations and trusts apply to the IRS to receive a tax identification 

number, known as an EIN, some BO information must be submitted in IRS form SS-4 under the 

concept of “responsible party.”

29 The definition of “responsible party” may not be consistent with the 

definition of beneficial owner as defined by the FATF in all cases.30 Moreover, an EIN is not required

for corporations that neither maintain an account with a FI nor meet any of several other 

criteria.

31 Staff notes that it is common for corporations to be established to hold assets (e.g., real 

estate), and may not require the use of an account at a FI or the employment of personnel or the 

filing other tax documents and, therefore, may have no requirement under U.S. law to apply for an 

EIN. Similarly, a U.S. corporation being used to launder foreign proceeds abroad could do so without 

an EIN except in circumstances where it had interactions with the United States (e.g., it has a FI

account in, does business in, or repatriates profits to the United States). The authorities were unable 

to indicate the total number of U.S. corporations or what proportion has an EIN.

32 Trusts, except 

grantor trusts, are generally required to apply for an EIN and file annual tax returns, whereas for 

grantor trusts,

33 the trusts’ tax return information is reported as part of the grantor’s own income tax 

return.34

22. FIs are still only obliged to collect BO information of corporations and trusts in limited 

cases. This has not fundamentally changed since the 2006 MER because the rules proposed in 

NPRM have not been enacted. However, in practice, according to the authorities, many FIs do collect 

 

28 This means information on the beneficial owners as defined by the FATF. See footnote 12 above.

29 See IRS form SS-4, question 7A, “name of responsible party” at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss4.pdf. For all

other entities except the publicly traded companies, “responsible party” is the person who has a level of control over, 

or entitlement to, the funds or assets in the entity that, as a practical matter, enables the individual, directly or 

indirectly, to control, manage, or direct the entity and the disposition of its funds and assets. The ability to fund the 

entity or the entitlement to the property of the entity alone, however, without any corresponding authority to 

control, manage, or direct the entity (such as in the case of a minor child beneficiary), does not cause the individual 

to be a responsible party.

30 See footnote 9 above. In particular, the definition focuses on control and does not cover ownership.

31 EIN is mandatory for an entity if: 

(i) it has employees; or

(ii) it has a qualified retirement plan; or

(iii) it files returns for employment taxes, excise taxes or income taxes; or

(iv) it opens an account with a bank, securities, or futures firm.

32 In each of the last two fiscal years approximately 4.5 million corporations and trusts were issued with an EIN. 

33 These are trusts set up by a living individual or an organization of which the grantor or some other person is 

treated as the owner of the trust, so that the income of the trust is taxable income of the owner.

34 See paragraph 1035 of the 2006 MER.
UNITED STATES

14 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

such information in certain circumstances based on regulatory guidance. Depository institutions are

required to have enhanced due diligence procedures when opening accounts for customers they 

determine pose a higher risk and among the procedures suggested in such circumstances is 

collecting beneficial ownership information, but this is not a requirement.

35 Domestic business 

entities (which include corporations and trusts) are identified as an example of customers that may 

pose specific risks—with shell companies being identified as presenting heightened risks.36 Thus, the 

mission notes that the collection of such BO information according to the guidance will depend on 

whether a corporation or a trust is considered higher risk, rather than in all cases as required by the 

FATF standard. Regarding trusts, the authorities stated that FIs, in addition to identifying and 

verifying the identity of the trust37, generally also identify and verify the identity of the trustee, who 

would necessarily have to open the account for the trust despite the absence of a mandatory 

requirement. In addition, guidance for banks provides that ”in certain circumstances involving 

revocable trusts, the bank may need to gather information about the settlor, grantor, trustee, or 

other persons with the authority to direct the trustee, and who thus have authority or control over 

the account, in order to establish the true identity of the customer.”

38

Access to BO information by LEAs and other authorities

23. Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) were mentioned by the LEAs as an occasional

source of BO information. In the absence of obligations for FIs to identify beneficial owners, the 

BO information contained in SARs filed with FinCEN may be limited.

24. IRS investigators have direct access to BO information held in the tax registration 

system and other LEAs can also gain access to this information. According to the authorities, the 

IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division has direct access to information in form SS-4 when investigating

potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code. However, all LEAs, including the IRS, need 

a court order to access this IRS information when investigating ML or any non-tax violation. In 

discussions, the authorities indicated that obtaining such court orders was relatively straightforward.

The information available on form SS-4 may assist with identifying beneficial owners for all 

applicants for an EIN after January 2010, and information provided prior to January 2010 may not 

relate to BO.

25. Non-IRS LEAs indicated that they supplement the information available to them with a 

full array of investigative techniques to locate the ultimate beneficial owner of corporations 

and trusts, which they consider to be an effective approach. The use of these techniques is 

 

35 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Manual, 2014, pages 57–58. 

36 Ibid, pages 20, 21, and 314. 

37 The obligation at 31 USC § 5318(l) to identify and verify account holders but not beneficial owners is implemented 

in the following regulations: depository institutions (31 CFR § 1020.220), securities broker-dealers (31 CFR § 

1023.220), mutual funds (31 CFR § 1024.220), futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities 

(31 CFR § 1026.220), and dealers in foreign exchange (31 CFR § 1022.410).

38 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, AML/CFT Exam Manual, 2014, page 281.
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 15

triggered when illicit activity is suspected. Often the starting point in relation to corporations is 

whatever information that is publicly available in the state registries, which most LEAs have access 

to.39 Federal LEAs can then utilize judicial processes to obtain records of BO from FIs and the related 

corporations (in practice their named officers and representatives). These processes include the use 

of grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, and administrative subpoenas. In some cases, mutual 

legal assistance has to be sought to trace BO, and the authorities indicated this can, on occasion, 

prove challenging or slow.40 A number of mechanisms have also been established to foster interagency cooperation and information exchange about BO among LEAs.41 Most LEAs believe that they 

regularly obtain BO information using these techniques, citing the case of Liberty Reserve42 as a very 

complex and successful example. It is, however, challenging for staff to ascertain how systematic or 

representative the successful cases are. In the case of trusts, the authorities indicated that the 

trustee is generally required by state common and statutory laws to maintain at all times the names 

of any other trustee, any protector, and all beneficiaries which can be obtained by LEAs through 

judicial processes.

26. Nonetheless, the use of investigative techniques may not always guarantee timely

access by non-IRS LEAs to BO information. Although the range of investigative powers available 

to LEAs (and certain regulators)—at both the federal and state levels—to compel the disclosure of 

BO information is sound and widely used, the LEAs met by staff have found such processes time 

consuming and resource-intensive at times, depending on the specific circumstances of the case43

and could require the commitment of greater resources. In addition, LEAs indicated that they would 

welcome legal reforms that would enable easier access to IRS information and introduce obligations 

for FIs and DNFBPs to collect BO information.

27. Moreover, the adequacy, currency, and accuracy of the BO information that could be 

obtained by LEAs is not guaranteed. As noted above, the availability of BO information held by 

the IRS and FIs requires some activity or other basis for a requirement to obtain an EIN or an

account with a FI respectively. BO information that is collected on revised IRS Form SS-4 is available 

 

39 Many LEAs indicated that they have subscription services to private sector databases that consolidate all public 

information in the state registries.

40 This might be because the BO is a nonresident or because a U.S. BO has used foreign entities as part of a U.S. 

corporation’s ownership structure. 

41 See Annex II for details. In addition, as described in paragraphs 81 and 329 of the 2006 MER, to alleviate the 

difficulties for other LEAs to obtain tax information, including in relation to BO, the IRS created a Lead Development 

Center to develop investigation leads relating to specific types of crimes using a combination of tax and publicly 

available information. The package of publicly available information can then be made available to non-IRS LEAs.

42 Liberty Reserve was a Costa Rica-based digital currency service that allegedly processed billions of dollars of illicit 

transactions. It was effectively shut down by U.S. authorities in May 2013, and its principals charged with ML offenses. 

It operated across multiple jurisdictions. The U.S. investigation involved obtaining BO information in relation to U.S. 

and foreign-based corporations. This information relied heavily on SARs and other information from FIs, investigative 

techniques (especially involving search warrants for email and other records), and the use of mutual legal assistance.

43 Especially for multi-layered corporate ownership structures that require LEAs to repeat their techniques at each 

layer of the structure until they discover the BO.
UNITED STATES

16 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

to law enforcement, and/or can often be obtained through investigative techniques when there is an 

ongoing criminal investigation, including from FIs if a business relationship exists. Corporations with 

no U.S.-reportable profits or direct use of the U.S. financial system or otherwise required to obtain 

an EIN escape U.S. obligations to provide required information on “responsible party” to the IRS,

and their BO information therefore cannot be obtained unless the corporation is under a criminal 

investigation.

International cooperation

28. The relative ease with which U.S. corporations can be established, coupled with their 

perceived credibility internationally, creates the potential for U.S. corporations to be misused 

for the laundering of the proceeds of foreign predicate crimes.

44 As noted above, foreign 

persons may find it convenient to create a U.S. corporation and use it for the laundering of the 

proceeds of criminal activities committed outside the United States, including foreign tax evasion. In 

addition, during discussions with LEAs, some indicated that they commonly come across situations 

where foreigners launder funds in the United States or other jurisdictions using U.S. corporations.

29. Limitations on the availability of BO and the authorities’ inability to initiate 

investigations on behalf of foreign counterparts in some circumstances may hamper 

international cooperation. For tax crimes, but not the laundering of the proceeds from tax crimes,

the IRS can exchange BO information on U.S. corporations that have an EIN with foreign tax 

authorities based on bilateral tax agreements. However, for enquiries relating to U.S.-based 

corporations without an EIN and for non-tax related foreign requests for assistance in ML 

investigations, the U.S. authorities are not able to respond in identifying and exchanging information 

on BO unless they can initiate a criminal investigation in the United States that successfully discovers

the BO of the subject corporation(s). This is a particular concern for any foreign requests related to

laundering the proceeds of foreign tax evasion in the United States. In such cases, since tax evasion 

is not a predicate offense to ML in the United States, an investigation cannot be initiated in the 

United States to obtain the BO information to provide the requested assistance. With respect to 

international cooperation for tax purposes, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes has 

found the United States to be not fully compliant with its principles in relation to availability of 

information on ownership.45 The unsatisfactory availability of BO information on U.S.-based 

 

44 Some recent examples can be found in a New York Times article "Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York 

Real Estate"(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warnercondos.html?_r=0 ) about foreigners using U.S. shell companies to channel funds of questionable source to purchase 

and hold high-end real estate in New York City. This article was one of a series of New York Times articles 

demonstrating the ease with which foreign buyers can acquire U.S. property using shell companies. The reporters 

took more than one year to reveal the underlying owners of some property “by searching business and court records 

from more than 20 countries, interviewing dozens of people with close knowledge of the complex, examining 

hundreds of property records and connecting the dots from lawyers or relatives named on deeds to the actual 

buyers.”

45 See OECD 2014 Tax Transparency Report on Progress
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 17

corporations is likely to frustrate international cooperation, not just in relation to requests to the 

United States relating to BO information, but also in the sense of impeding reciprocity that the 

United States needs to obtain cooperation from foreign counterparts.

E. Recommendations

30. The authorities regularly use investigative techniques to obtain BO information about U.S. 

corporations and trusts. Their use of such techniques could be made more effective if requirements 

to collect and maintain BO information were strengthened. The authorities are recommended to

expeditiously take steps to ensure that accurate BO information of U.S. corporations and trusts can 

be accessed by the competent authorities in a timely manner, in particular by: (i) requiring that such

information is collected and maintained by either registries of corporations and trusts, agents 

serving corporations and trusts, or corporations and trusts, and accessible by competent authorities 

in a timely manner; and (ii) requiring all FIs and DNFBPs, in particular trust and company service 

providers (TCSPs) including lawyers and accountants providing such services, to identify the 

beneficial owners of corporations and trusts and take reasonable measures to verify those identities.

In addition, in order to facilitate combating the laundering of tax crimes, including through 

international cooperation, the authorities are recommended to make serious tax crimes predicate 

offenses to ML.

 

46 Laundering in the United States of proceeds associated with taxes evaded abroad cannot trigger criminal 

investigations in the United States since tax crimes are not predicate offense to ML in the United States.

Tax crimes Non-tax related

Criminal 

investigation 

initiated in 

the United 

States

 Through the IRS based on bilateral 

agreements (BO information available for 

exchange limited to that of those corporations 

with an EIN); and

 Through other LEAs based on bilateral 

agreements or other mechanisms

 Through other LEAs based 

on bilateral agreements or 

other mechanisms

No criminal 

investigation 

initiated in 

the United 

States46

 Through the IRS based on bilateral 

agreements (BO information available for 

exchange limited to that of those corporations 

with an EIN).

 Appears to be unable to 

assist