<p>Bancr&eacute;dito Holding Corporation (BHC), the sole shareholder of Bancr&eacute;dito International Bank &amp; Trust Corporation, has launched a significant legal battle in Miami-Dade County&rsquo;s Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court. The lawsuit targets three prominent law firms&mdash;McConnell Vald&eacute;s LLC, Holland &amp; Knight LLP, and McDermott Will &amp; Schulte LLP&mdash;accusing them of providing negligent legal advice that resulted in a multi-million-dollar penalty imposed by U.S. regulators.</p>

<p>The dispute traces back to 2023 when the U.S. Department of the Treasury&rsquo;s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) assessed a <strong>$15 million civil money penalty</strong> against Bancr&eacute;dito International Bank. FinCEN cited serious violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and failures in anti-money laundering (AML) compliance between October 2015 and May 2022. Specific violations included failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), inadequate due diligence for foreign correspondent accounts, and weaknesses in its overall compliance program.</p>

<p>Bancr&eacute;dito&rsquo;s lawsuit argues that its legal counsel at the time had misrepresented the adequacy of the bank&rsquo;s compliance systems and reporting obligations. According to the complaint, in 2020 the law firms advised that certain regulatory filings were unnecessary and assured Bancr&eacute;dito that its compliance program met federal requirements. However, during subsequent negotiations with FinCEN, these same firms allegedly abandoned their prior legal positions, leaving the bank vulnerable and forcing it into a settlement that included admitting to regulatory violations.</p>

<p>The lawsuit further claims that the law firms&rsquo; conflicting advice and failure to defend the bank&rsquo;s initial compliance assessments caused direct reputational and financial damage. By accepting the Consent Order, Bancr&eacute;dito not only paid a steep penalty but also admitted to violations that it believes were inaccurately characterized. This admission, according to Bancr&eacute;dito, severely harmed its standing with regulators, clients, and the financial community.</p>

<p>Bancr&eacute;dito Holding Corporation is now seeking a <strong>jury trial</strong> and damages to recover losses linked to the fine, reputational harm, and ongoing business challenges. The case could have wide-ranging implications for the legal industry, particularly for firms advising financial institutions on high-stakes compliance matters.</p>

<p>Industry experts note that this lawsuit highlights the growing accountability pressures faced by law firms advising banks in complex regulatory environments. With regulators in the U.S. and globally increasing scrutiny of AML compliance, the expectations for legal advisors have never been higher. If Bancr&eacute;dito prevails, the case may set a precedent for financial institutions holding their legal counsel liable for regulatory outcomes that stem from flawed or inconsistent advice.</p>

<p>The outcome could also influence how banks approach future compliance strategies. Many institutions may demand clearer legal opinions, more robust defense strategies in enforcement proceedings, and greater accountability when regulatory risks escalate into penalties.</p>

<p>As Bancr&eacute;dito Holding pushes forward with its claim, the financial community will be watching closely. The case underscores the intersection of legal responsibility, regulatory enforcement, and corporate governance&mdash;an area where mistakes can carry a billion-dollar impact.</p>