May 20th, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in response to the notice of proposed rule-making issued by the Dept of the Treasury and the SEC on May 13th, 2024, wherein the Dept of the Treasury and the SEC propose to expand the definition of a “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to include certain investment advisers and to compel such investment advisers (“Covered IAs”) to abide by additional regulatory requirements in order to address illicit finance risks (the “Proposed Rule”). The BSA is an important piece of legislation that helps to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other illicit financial activity. It is rightfully applicable to the very financial institutions that are responsible for the movement and custody of funds and securities, such as broker-dealers and banks. Historically, most investment advisers have been scoped out of the definition of a “financial institution” for good reason – imposing BSA requirements on investment advisers would be unnecessary and redundant, as their clients’ cash and securities transactions are processed through broker-dealers and banks that are already subject to the BSA. In recent years, the amount of regulatory compliance obligations imposed upon investment advisers, and their associated resourcing requirements and costs, have increased substantially and shows no sign of abatement at the federal level. While there may be differences of opinion on how meritorious each of these regulatory obligations are within the industry, it is an undisputed fact that each adds on to the regulatory burden carried by the investment adviser. As currently written, the Proposed Rule has no identifiable quantitative benefit yet would force investment advisers as a group to spend billions of dollars to be in compliance with its onerous rules. It would be burdensome and unjustified to compel investment advisers to shoulder additional regulatory obligations that are unnecessary and duplicative in nature. The focus of the BSA should continue to be on the very financial institutions that are responsible for moving and processing clients’ cash and securities: broker-dealers and banks, as that is where the risk lies. Expanding the application to parties who merely provide investment advice is a wayward measure that will not address any real risk. For these reasons, the Proposed Rule should be shelved, just like its predecessors.