’ s needs, common sense, and fairness. those same inquiries should be on the minds of other professionals — including risk professionals in the first line of defense. i mentioned earlier the recent “ beneficial owner ” regulations. those rules are part of the customer due diligence regime for financial institutions. the rules tell you the information firms are required to gather and retain to help keep financial crime out of the banking and payment systems. they do not, however, directly answer the question, “ is this the type of customer we want to do business with? ” that question requires judgment that is not the exclusive domain of lawyers. the answer will depend not on laws and regulations, but on your institution ’ s purpose and principles. manage account relationships one area where the difference between what ’ s legal and what ’ s right is immediately relevant is the management of customer account relationships, including accounts for respondent banks. i know that this can be tricky. banks do not want to take on unnecessary legal and reputational risk for the weaknesses and failures of account holders. nor do banks want to needlessly disrupt or impair the efficiency and speed of the payment system. but that system is under attack. perhaps we need to think differently about risks, benefits, and costs. an especially difficult decision is whether to close accounts for respondent banks with a demonstrable record of mismanaging their risks of money laundering and other financial crime. i suspect that many firms will say that they already do this. but they may not do it enough, frankly. or at the least, they may not ask enough questions when confronted with serious red flags about a respondent bank ’ s activities. it is a process that requires careful attention. if a particular bank, or other financial services provider, is unwilling, or even truly unable, to do their part to protect the payment system, then perhaps they should not be part of it. to be crystal clear : i do not support the large - scale, regionally focused reduction of the availability of correspondent banking services, sometimes referred to as “ de - risking. ” the industry has been criticized for “ de - risking ” with a broad sword. i am recommending a scalpel. my concern is how correspondent banks protect themselves and the payment system from specific institutions that have a demonstrated, and unremediated, history of unfairly exposing others to their risks. client - facing roles are critical to identifying customers that do not play by the rules. the federal financial institutions examination

year in which the fbi, fincen, local law enforcement, and financial firms discuss financial crime — especially terrorist financing, money laundering, and cyber - crime. we do our best to act as a liaison between banks and law enforcement officials. we ’ ll keep at it. conclusion stepping back, i ’ d encourage you to consider as well what your firm ’ s response to financial crime says about its purpose and culture. what does it say about the role of the financial services industry in society? and, to get personal for a moment, how does that response make you feel about where you work and how you make a living? from where i sit, gaps in aml and other payment system defenses make a terrible impression because of the terrible things funded through illegal payments. when criminals take advantage of your firms and our financial system to make use of their ill - gotten gains, they make every institution involved play the fool. and here i am going to use the “ m ” word : morals. now i know that whenever a lawyer starts talking about morals, eye rolling ensues — often justifiably. but i do think that detecting and deterring financial crime is not just a legal obligation. it is a moral one. thanks for letting me get all of that off of my chest. i ’ m honored that you wanted me back this morning. forums like this highlight important issues and choices. make the right choices, not just the legal ones. i wish you all a good conference. thank you. 1 richard charlton, meghan mccurdy, brett phillips, thomas noone, sean o ’ malley, and edward silva assisted in preparing these remarks. 2 see adolf berger, encyclopedic dictionary of roman law 467 ( 1953 ). see also marcus tullius cicero, in verrem 2. 1. 108 ( tracing the crime of counterfeiting to the cornelian laws ). 3 fincen, history of anti - money laundering laws. 5 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches 4 31 c. f. r. § 1010. 230. 5 sr 18 – 10 : joint statement on innovative efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, dec. 2, 2018. 6 see michael held, reforming culture and conduct in the financial services industry : how can lawyers help?, remarks at yale law school ’ s chirelstein colloquium, mar. 8, 2017. 7 cf. preet bharara, criminal accountability and