S. 569 would ensure that persons who form corporations in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations for criminal gain, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations.
Detailed Summary
Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to: (1) establish uniform requirements for states relating to the disclosure of beneficial owners of corporations and limited liability companies formed in such states and the updating of such disclosures; (2) require states to maintain beneficial ownership disclosure information for five years after a corporation or limited liability company is terminated; (3) impose additional identification requirements for the beneficial owners of corporations or limited liability companies who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States; and (4) provide for additional civil and criminal penalties for individuals who provide false beneficial ownership information to a state. Defines "beneficial owner" as an individual who has a level of control over a business entity that enables such individual to control, manage, or direct such entity.
Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a proposed and final rule to require persons involved in forming a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, or other legal entity to establish anti-money laundering programs.
Requires the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on state requirements for the disclosure of beneficial owners of partnerships, trusts, or other legal entities formed in such states.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 11/5/2009: Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hearings held.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Deod
March 15, 2009, 8:32pm (report abuse)How many Congressmen owned AIG. It was the spy stuff?
MessengerBoy
April 20, 2009, 12:15pm (report abuse)This is all very well intentioned, but it appears to saddle the States with creating entire departments devoted to compliance. In addition, what makes Congress expect that anyone will remember to provide updated information regarding changes, much less someone whos laundering money?
David Gendron
May 26, 2009, 4:50pm (report abuse)Before the USA PATRIOT Act this may have made sense, but today, the banks collect all the beneficial owner information. A company is useless at handling money without a bank account so why duplicate the collection of information and make it so much more expensive for the States and everyone involved. The examples they give are all too old to have any bearing on today's world, they couldn't happen today because of the banking changes already in place.
MysterMr
June 19, 2009, 9:35pm (report abuse)Deod, this bill exempts public companies - presumably because of politico ownership. They don't want their personal assets shown.
This bill isn't about terrorism or public safety anyway. Obviously it is about control.
JP
June 30, 2009, 3:26pm (report abuse)Even more interesting, Sen Levin's bill also exempts companies whose undisclosed ownership is in "the public interest," presumably because some of his campaign contributors might be embarrassed - kind of like Nixon hiding behind "national security."