<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47866-2004Apr27.html>
If memory serves correctly, isn't Riggs the bank of choice of the whole "Ho(u)se of Bush, House of Saud" crew? Isn't there someone named * on the Board?
<snip>
Federal bank regulators are preparing to impose on Riggs Bank what could be the largest civil penalty ever against a financial institution for violations of anti-money-laundering laws, sources familiar with the discussions between Riggs and government officials said yesterday.
The fines being contemplated by regulators could top $25 million, the sources said. The penalty will be imposed for what the bank acknowledges have been years-long deficiencies in complying with the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires financial institutions to report suspicious activities to federal authorities.
...<snip>...
Regulators have warned the bank that they might impose fines on individual directors and executives. But sources yesterday said that, as of now, neither people running the bank nor its parent company will be cited individually.
The penalties and management changes would come as the FBI, bank regulators and three congressional committees continue to delve into Riggs's international banking relationships, particularly its two-decade role as chief banker for the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington. That relationship, as well as other multimillion-dollar embassy accounts, ended in recent weeks as a result of the ongoing probe. Riggs says it terminated the relationship. The Saudis say they ended it.
Either way, friction stems from a review by investigators of the Saudi accounts for evidence of money laundering. Investigators have reached no conclusions about the reasons for series of layered transactions over several years in the embassy accounts, including the personal accounts of the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, sources say.