Government enforcement in a terrorism-financing matter can involve several authorities at once: the Department of Justice National Security Division, an FBI counterterrorism squad, a U.S. Attorney’s Office, OFAC, FinCEN, a prudential regulator, congressional committees and foreign agencies. Each may seek overlapping facts under different legal standards. We organize the response so the client presents one accurate record without surrendering privilege or creating avoidable conflict between proceedings.
Criminal inquiries may focus on material support, conspiracy, money laundering, sanctions evasion, false statements, obstruction, forfeiture or related offenses. FinCEN or a financial regulator may examine BSA/AML program effectiveness, suspicious-activity governance, information sharing, customer diligence or correspondent banking. OFAC may issue an administrative subpoena or evaluate an apparent violation under a strict-liability civil framework while considering enforcement factors. Congressional committees may request briefings or records and make public statements that affect the same matter. The challenge is not simply responding to each request; it is understanding how every response can be reused elsewhere.
We establish a privileged command structure, a common chronology and a production protocol. The team identifies custodians and systems, applies defensible preservation, manages classified or sensitive information appropriately, and separates legal analysis from business communications. We assess whether an internal investigation is necessary, define its scope, and avoid uncontrolled interviews. When an institution must file or consider a suspicious activity report, counsel respects BSA confidentiality and does not use ordinary litigation practices that could expose protected information.
Cross-border matters add another layer. Evidence may be sought through mutual legal assistance, letters rogatory, direct regulator cooperation or treaty channels. Individuals may face extradition or travel risk; organizations may confront incompatible data, secrecy, employment or sanctions laws. We work with vetted local counsel, map what can be transferred lawfully, and examine dual-criminality, specialty, political-offense and human-rights issues where relevant. For trade-based money laundering, hawala and informal value transfer, the factual work includes invoices, shipping, customs, inventory, settlement, brokers, agents and family or community relationships—without substituting stereotypes for evidence.
What we do
Engagements range from urgent subpoena and search response to multi-year remediation, monitorship, congressional oversight or coordinated cross-border resolution.
- Response to DOJ National Security Division, FBI counterterrorism and U.S. Attorney’s Office inquiries and compulsory process.
- OFAC administrative subpoenas, pre-penalty notices, voluntary self-disclosures, penalty analysis and settlement submissions.
- FinCEN and prudential-regulator examinations involving BSA/AML, CFT, Section 311, SAR governance and correspondent banking.
- Internal investigations with defined scope, privilege protocols, independent reporting lines and evidence-based findings.
- Search-warrant, dawn-raid and device-seizure response, including employee guidance and business-continuity planning.
- Congressional investigations, testimony preparation, document requests and coordination with criminal and regulatory defense.
- FARA analysis for activity involving foreign principals, political activities and public communications connected to a CTF matter.
- Trade-based money-laundering analysis covering invoices, valuation, shipping, customs, inventory, third-party payments and settlement.
- Hawala and informal-value-transfer investigations using corridor, ledger, agent and counterparty evidence rather than assumptions.
- Mutual legal assistance, extradition, cross-border data collection and coordination with foreign sanctions or enforcement authorities.
Who we advise
We represent regulated institutions, boards, compliance officers, executives, charities, NGOs, fintechs, crypto businesses and individuals. Financial institutions often need a coordinated response across legal, compliance, audit, data and business teams. Charities may need to preserve donor and beneficiary information while protecting vulnerable populations and lawful humanitarian work. Technology and virtual-asset companies need counsel who can connect blockchain or network data with the governing legal theory rather than treating analytics as self-proving.
Government-affairs support is integrated when a matter reaches Congress or policy agencies. Robert J. Hayes leads oversight and FARA analysis, but advocacy does not replace legal defense. Briefing papers, testimony, registrations and legislative proposals are reviewed against the investigative record so a short-term policy message does not create a long-term evidentiary problem.
Our approach
Parallel matters are managed through a single strategic record and clear decision rights, with separate workstreams only where privilege, conflicts or legal duties require them.
Command
Create the response structure, preservation plan, privilege rules, agency map and immediate decision calendar.
Investigate
Test facts through documents, data, interviews, transaction analysis and qualified foreign-counsel support.
Engage
Sequence productions, meetings, submissions and remediation evidence across agencies and congressional stakeholders.
Conclude
Pursue declination, closure, settlement, remediation acceptance or litigation while managing collateral consequences.
