	Law Enforcement Finds a Number of FinCEN’s Services and Products Useful, but Would Like More Information about Select Products and Opportunities to Provide FinCEN with Input about Some Types of Support

In our December 2009 report, we found that law enforcement agencies we  surveyed generally reported finding FinCEN’s services and products  useful, citing direct access to BSA data, on-site liaisons, and access to  financial information on people or organizations suspected of being  involved in significant money laundering or terrorist financing activities— known as the 314(a) process—as those that are among the most useful. However, we found that FinCEN could (1) better inform law enforcement  of the types of complex analytic products that it can provide, (2) more  clearly define the types of requests for complex analytic support that it  will accept, and (3) actively solicit input on the development of complex  analytic products in order to help law enforcement better utilize FinCEN’s  expertise and enhance the value of the products it provides to law  enforcement. This  tool, developed by FinCEN in response to Section 314(a) of the USA  PATRIOT Act, enables federal law enforcement agencies to reach out to  financial institutions across the country for potential information related  to financial crimes investigations. FinCEN has sought to increase its production of more complex  analytic products, which law enforcement agencies report are also  helpful in financial crimes investigations. We reported that from 2004 through  2007, requests to FinCEN to conduct such queries decreased 80 percent  from 2,048 to 409.As a result, FinCEN has identified a need to redefine its  role in supporting law enforcement agencies and to enhance the value and  relevance of its analytic work. These liaisons noted that  because FinCEN does not actively communicate with them about when  completed products are available, they may not be aware of all of  FinCEN’s products that could be useful in their investigations of financial  crimes. We recommended that FinCEN clarify and communicate to law  enforcement agencies the various types of complex analytic products  FinCEN can provide and establish a process for informing law  enforcement agencies about the availability of these products. FinCEN  agreed with our recommendation and outlined plans it would take in order  to improve communication with law enforcement regarding the services,  products, and capabilities FinCEN offers. In April 2010, FinCEN officials reported that they have taken steps to  collect information about law enforcement customer’s priorities, needs,  and plans. In interviews with officials from FinCEN’s top five federal  law enforcement customers, liaisons from all five agencies reported that  FinCEN does not consistently seek their input about ongoing or planned  analytic work. As a result, we recommended that FinCEN establish a  systematic process for actively soliciting input from law enforcement  agencies and incorporating this input into the selection and development  of its analytic products. However, we reported that liaisons from four of FinCEN’s top five federal  law enforcement customers reported concerns that their agencies do not  have sufficient opportunities to provide input when FinCEN is considering  proposed regulatory changes. However, we reported that  liaisons from four of FinCEN’s top five federal law enforcement customers  reported that the public record is not always the most appropriate venue  for providing comments on proposed regulatory changes because their  comments often contain law enforcement sensitive information. According  to these officials, raising these concerns in a public forum may  compromise key investigative techniques or strategies used in ongoing  investigations. FinCEN agreed with our recommendation and stated that  it would determine and implement appropriate ways to communicate to  the law enforcement community its ability to receive and use law  enforcement sensitive information in this context. In April 2010, FinCEN  officials stated that they have developed an approach for collecting law  enforcement sensitive information during the public notice and comment  period of the NPRM process without making the comments publicly  available.
Why GAO Did This Study

Financial investigations are used to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, crimes that can destabilize national economies and threaten global security. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), within the Department of the Treasury, supports law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in their efforts to investigate financial crimes by providing them with services and products, such as access to financial data, analysis, and case support. This statement discusses the extent to which the law enforcement community finds FinCEN's support useful in its efforts to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. This statement is based on work GAO completed and issued in December 2009.

What GAO Found

In December 2009, we reported that the majority of 25 LEAs GAO surveyed found FinCEN's support useful in their efforts to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, but FinCEN could enhance its support by better informing LEAs about its services and products and actively soliciting their input. Of the 20 LEAs that responded to a question GAO posed about which FinCEN services they found most useful, 16 LEAs cited direct access to Bank Secrecy Act data--records of financial transactions possibly indicative of money laundering that FinCEN collects--as the most valuable service FinCEN provides. Additionally, 11 federal LEAs cited a tool that allows federal LEAs to reach out, through FinCEN, to financial institutions nationwide to locate financial information related to ongoing investigations as a key service offered by FinCEN. To further enhance the value and relevance of its analytic work to LEAs, FinCEN has sought to increase development of complex analytic products, such as reports identifying trends and patterns in money laundering. Sixteen law enforcement agencies GAO surveyed reported that they generally found these complex analytic products useful. However, we reported that three of five LEAs that are among FinCEN's primary federal customers stated that FinCEN does not provide detailed information about the various types of complex analytic products it can provide. Three of FinCEN's primary customers also stated that they would like more information about when completed products become available. In December 2009, we recommended that FinCEN clarify the types of complex analytic products it can provide to LEAs. FinCEN agreed with our recommendation and in April 2010 outlined plans to improve communication with law enforcement regarding FinCEN's services, products, and capabilities. All five LEAs also reported that FinCEN does not actively seek LEAs' input about ongoing or planned analytic products, though four of these LEAs believed that doing so could improve the quality and relevance of the products FinCEN provides to its customers. We recommended that FinCEN establish a process for soliciting input regarding the development of its analytic products. FinCEN agreed with our recommendation and in April 2010 outlined a number of steps it plans to take to better assess law enforcement needs, including ongoing efforts to solicit input from LEAs. Finally, liaisons from four of FinCEN's top five federal LEAs reported that their agencies do not have sufficient opportunities to provide input when FinCEN is considering regulatory changes because their comments often contain sensitive information that may compromise investigative techniques or strategies used in ongoing investigations. We recommended that FinCEN develop a mechanism to collect sensitive information regarding regulatory changes from LEAs. In April 2010, FinCEN reported that it developed an approach for collecting sensitive information without making the comments publicly available.