CTF briefings
Clear analysis for consequential decisions.
These briefings provide general information, not legal advice. Authorities, licenses and facts change. A decision about a specific transaction, investigation or program should be based on the current law and verified circumstances.
Defense
Material support: organize the evidence before the theory hardens
A useful early review separates the statutory question from the label attached to the investigation. Counsel should identify the alleged support, the relevant person or organization, the designation timeline, the knowledge or intent theory, and the evidence connecting the client to each element. Financial records should be read with contracts, communications, travel, program delivery and counterparty evidence. This approach can reveal lawful explanations, missing context, translation issues or attribution assumptions while preserving the option for a focused government presentation.
Daniel R. Mercer · Washington, D.C.
Banks
Section 314(a) and 314(b): two authorities, different decisions
Section 314(a) supports law-enforcement information requests routed through FinCEN; Section 314(b) permits qualifying, registered financial institutions to share information under defined conditions to identify and report possible money laundering or terrorist activity. Institutions should not collapse the two. Governance should identify authorized personnel, verification, search methodology, escalation, confidentiality, documentation and the relationship to SAR decisions. A fast response is valuable only when the scope and legal basis are understood.
Michael Reed · Washington, D.C.
Sanctions
A disciplined path after a terrorism-related screening alert
An alert is a starting point, not a legal conclusion. The review should confirm identity, aliases, ownership, the applicable program, the payment chain, the property interest and whether funds must be blocked or a transaction rejected. For humanitarian activity, counsel should then examine relevant general licenses, specific-license requirements and conditions. Every decision should preserve the source data and analysis so the institution can explain why it acted, what it reported and what would permit future activity.
Thomas E. Carter · Washington, D.C.
Crypto
Blockchain exposure is evidence, not automatic attribution
Wallet analytics can show transaction paths and exposure, but legal and compliance decisions still require context: who controlled a wallet, when control existed, whether a service pooled funds, the reliability of labels, the amount and timing of exposure, and what customer information indicates. Escalation models should combine on-chain and off-chain evidence. Investigators should document why a risk indicator changes customer treatment, a transaction decision or a report rather than treating a vendor score as self-executing.
Jonathan K. Walsh · Washington, D.C.
Nonprofits
Risk-based CTF controls without indiscriminate de-risking
Nonprofit controls should focus on the subset of operations actually exposed to terrorist-financing abuse. That means understanding delivery methods, partners, beneficiaries, cash, procurement, access constraints and monitoring—not simply screening every name and abandoning a region after any alert. FATF has emphasized risk-based measures and the need to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate nonprofit activity. Boards should document why enhanced controls, licensing, monitoring or restrictions are proportionate to a specific operation.
Jonathan K. Walsh · Washington, D.C.
Cross-Border
Managing one factual record across multiple authorities
A cross-border CTF matter may produce DOJ process, OFAC questions, regulator requests, foreign data restrictions and parliamentary or congressional interest. The response should use a common chronology and issue list while respecting each forum’s privilege, secrecy and production rules. Local counsel should receive defined questions and collection protocols. Public or policy statements should be checked against evidence. This structure reduces duplication and helps decision-makers see where one response could create consequences in another jurisdiction.
Kevin Hall · Washington, D.C.
