Finding That the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Is a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern

1Therefore, references to the authority and findings of the Secretary in this document apply equally to the Director of FinCEN. 2 31 U.S.C. 5318A was amended by section 501 of the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006, Public Law 109–293. address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. Respondents: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government. Estimated Expected Annual Number of Activities: 15. Estimated Annual Responses: 5,900. Frequency of Response: Once per Request. Estimated Annual Burden: 1,758. Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB’s clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93. Dated: May 24, 2016. T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 2016–12973 Filed 6–1–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Finding That the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Is a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern AGENCY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (‘‘FinCEN’’), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of finding. SUMMARY: This document provides notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Director of FinCEN found on May 27, 2016 that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (‘‘DPRK’’ or ‘‘North Korea’’) is a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FinCEN, (800) 949–2732.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Statutory Provisions On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the ‘‘USA PATRIOT Act’’), Public Law 107–
56. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act
amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (‘‘BSA’’), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C 1951–1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311– 5314 and 5316–5332, to promote prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR
Chapter X.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act
(‘‘Section 311’’) added 31 U.S.C. 5318A to the BSA, granting the Secretary of the Treasury (the ‘‘Secretary’’) the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of ‘‘primary money laundering concern,’’ to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain ‘‘special measures’’ against the primary money laundering concern.
Section 311 identifies factors for the
Secretary to consider and requires Federal agencies to consult before the Secretary may conclude that a jurisdiction, institution, class of transaction, or type of account is of primary money laundering concern. The statute also provides similar procedures, i.e., factors and consultation requirements, for selecting the specific special measures to be imposed against the primary money laundering concern. For purposes of the finding contained in this notice, the Secretary has delegated his authority under Section 311 to the Director of FinCEN.1 Taken as a whole, Section 311 provides the Secretary with a range of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and terrorist financing concerns most effectively. Through the imposition of various special measures, the Secretary can gain more information about the jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts of concern; can more effectively monitor the respective jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts; or can prohibit U.S. financial institutions from involvement with jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts that pose a money laundering concern. Before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a jurisdiction is of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary is required to consult with both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The Secretary is also required by Section 311, as amended,2 to consider ‘‘such information as the Secretary determines to be relevant, including the following potentially relevant factors,’’ which extend the Secretary’s consideration beyond traditional money laundering concerns to issues involving, inter alia, terrorist financing and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (‘‘WMD’’) or missiles:

• Evidence that organized criminal
  groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of WMD or missiles, have transacted business in that jurisdiction;
• The extent to which that
  jurisdiction or financial institutions operating in that jurisdiction offer bank secrecy or special regulatory advantages to nonresidents or nondomiciliaries of that jurisdiction;
• The substance and quality of
  administration of the bank supervisory and counter- money laundering laws of that jurisdiction;
• The relationship between the
  volume of financial transactions occurring in that jurisdiction and the size of the economy of the jurisdiction;
• The extent to which that
  jurisdiction is characterized as an offshore banking or secrecy haven by