Bill Overview
Title: No Bank Accounts for Terrorists Act
Description: This bill allows the Department of the Treasury to impose restrictions regarding an entity or activity determined to be of primary money-laundering concern in connection with illicit finance in Afghanistan. Specifically, if Treasury determines that a foreign financial institution, class of transaction, or type of account is of such concern, Treasury may (1) require domestic financial institutions and agencies to take special measures, such as reporting certain financial transactions involving that entity or activity; or (2) prohibit, or impose certain conditions upon, the transmittal of funds involving any domestic financial institution or agency and that entity or activity.
Sponsors: Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and entities involved in illicit financial activities related to Afghanistan
Estimated Size: 1000
- The bill targets entities and activities involved in primary money-laundering in connection with illicit finance in Afghanistan. This suggests that individuals and organizations dealing with financial institutions suspected of these connections could be impacted.
- Financial institutions, especially those operating internationally or with partners in Afghanistan, might need to adjust their operations to comply with new restrictions.
- As the bill references illicit financial activities, the target population would likely include those involved in or supporting illicit activities linked to or funding terrorism.
- Individuals with any legal business or financial transactions in or with Afghanistan could face increased scrutiny or reporting requirements if they fall under suspicions related to this framework.
Reasoning
- The policy is highly targeted, affecting primarily individuals and institutions directly involved in financial transactions related to Afghanistan that may be susceptible to money laundering concerns.
- Given budget restrictions, the policy cannot broadly impact the general population and will likely focus on specific financial entities and individuals engaged in high-risk transactions or international business with Afghanistan.
- American citizens not involved in such transactions or activities would experience negligible direct effects from this policy. The primary focus is on increasing scrutiny on financial transactions involving Afghanistan.
Simulated Interviews
Bank Compliance Officer (New York City, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy increases our workload significantly, but it's a necessary step toward global financial security.
- Our institution might need more resources to handle the additional compliance requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy might complicate simple transactions and increase costs due to compliance requirements.
- Hopefully, it will not affect the reliability of our operations, but there's potential for disruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is reassuring as it provides more guidance on investment safety in high-risk regions.
- It potentially affects the attractiveness of regions for investment negatively, but it can protect from illicit risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Researcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is interesting from a research perspective and emphasizes the importance of financial security.
- Personally, it doesn't affect me directly but may offer useful data for research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
IT Specialist at a Financial Institution (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy means more work for our team, adapting systems for compliance.
- It's part of the job to deal with such changes, but it can create short-term stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with preventative measures necessary to curb illicit financial conduct.
- From an analytical standpoint, it's a significant shift towards increased financial transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm detached from professional impacts but appreciate the intent to enhance financial regulations.
- It seems beneficial for international stability, which I view positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Non-Profit Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a concern about potential tightening of financial support channels, affecting donations.
- This policy could complicate relations with some international partners, impacting our funding streams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Austin, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will not significantly impact me, as my bank primarily deals with local transactions.
- From a community perspective, awareness about such policies is more relevant than direct involvement for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
International Trade Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to have such regulations, though they might complicate advisory processes.
- My business model includes adjusting to regulatory frameworks; hence it's both a challenge and an opportunity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $55000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $9000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the measure in targeting and curbing illicit financial activities is crucial for realizing its intended impact.
- Financial institutions' capacity to adapt to new regulations without significant disruptions or pass-through of costs to consumers.
- Potential diplomatic implications with Afghanistan and neighboring regions due to perceived financial sanctions.
- The balance between increased security and operational costs for financial institutions in ensuring compliance.