New York’s Department of Financial Services said on Oct. 15 that Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB, the Swedish bank known as SEB, will pay a $33 million penalty under a consent order over failures in its anti-money-laundering program. The order resolves the department’s investigation of SEB and its New York branch. Acting Superintendent Kaitlin Asrow said “financial institutions must adhere to New York’s rigorous laws and regulations” and that the department will hold entities accountable that fail to meet those standards.
For most readers the penalty is a story about a foreign bank, not their own account: the DFS announcement describes no customer payments, refunds or changes for account holders. What it does show is what New York regulators look for when they judge whether a bank is watching where money comes from: who its customers are, which other banks it deals with, and whether it reviews suspicious transfers in time.
Retirement deadlines, in your inbox: Miss an enrollment or claim deadline and the money can be gone. Join the Retirement Money Brief and we’ll send you our Bank, Debt & Protected-Benefit Checkup as a welcome gift.
Get the Brief + the bank checkup →
We may earn a commission from links on this page.
What did New York say SEB got wrong?
DFS lists three areas of failure. The first is the bank’s Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering program, where the department cites critical gaps, including inadequate customer due diligence and no strategies to reduce the money-laundering risk from high-risk clients, which exposed the New York market.
The second is correspondent banking, the accounts one bank holds for another. DFS says SEB did not do enough due diligence on high-risk correspondent partners, including foreign institutions, kept deficient client files, miscalculated money-laundering risk and failed to update its procedures for those relationships.
Which SEB operations were involved?
The third area is SEB’s Baltic subsidiaries in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. DFS says transaction monitoring there was deficient at detecting and blocking suspicious activity, and that backlogs let transactions go without timely review for money-laundering and sanctions risks.
DFS’s announcement does not state the years covered. SEB’s own Oct. 15 release says the department reviewed customer due diligence and transaction monitoring in its Baltic operations from 2015 to 2019.
What does SEB say, and is the U.S. review over?
SEB says the DFS resolution closes the U.S. reviews of its historical anti-money-laundering measures. The U.S. Department of Justice ended its review without taking any action, according to the bank. Cecilia Wolrath Ekenbäck, SEB’s head of group compliance, said, “This chapter is now closed,” and that the bank has implemented extensive measures to strengthen its resilience.
SEB said the cost will be recognized in its fourth-quarter 2026 operating expenses, with a limited financial impact, and that its full-year cost target is unchanged. DFS noted that SEB cooperated throughout the investigation and acknowledged the remediation steps it has taken, and SEB accepted the terms of the resolution.
How does the SEB penalty connect to the Panama Papers?
DFS says the settlement follows its review of licensees’ connections to Mossack Fonseca, the law firm whose records were exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers leak. The department’s earlier July 16 announcement on that review involved Swedbank AB and its New York branch, which agreed to a $50 million penalty under a separate consent order.
DFS found in that case that Swedbank withheld information about its Baltic subsidiaries in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and Asrow said at the time that institutions must cooperate fully with the department’s oversight. Two Swedish banks with Baltic operations have now settled with the same New York regulator within three months, though the SEB announcement does not tie its penalty to Mossack Fonseca clients specifically.
What does the SEB order mean for an ordinary account holder?
The penalty is aimed at the bank’s internal controls, not at its customers, and the DFS announcement says nothing about customer money. The department’s press office, at (212) 709-1691, takes questions about the order, and the full consent order is posted on its enforcement actions page.
The dollar figure is also worth setting in context. SEB is paying $33 million, the cost is described by the bank as having a limited financial impact, and the Swedbank penalty three months earlier was $50 million. The DFS announcement does not say that any of the SEB money is set aside for customers, and it describes no restitution program of any kind.
Who is watching the accounts that hold your own money?
SEB’s penalty is about a bank’s controls failing to catch suspicious activity. The controls on a household’s own accounts are mostly the account holder’s, and weak ones are how scammers and account takeovers get through.
The Keep-It Starter Bundle is nine guides in one download, one per money leak, and Step 1 is “Scam-Proof Your Accounts in a Weekend.” It is not a guide to bank regulation. It takes the story’s lesson about monitoring and turns it toward the accounts a reader controls, with step-by-step moves for one weekend.
Get the nine money-leak guides, including the account-protection weekend plan →
This article was produced with AI assistance and edited for accuracy against the sources linked above.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
