We are aware of the comment. I can give you a moment now, and then we can see where that takes us.
Yes, we are aware of their view. It's that we haven't fully complied with, effectively, our commitment and agreement with the United States and what we've done in our implementing legislation. We, in fact, think we have.
To give you a very quick overview of it, the intergovernmental agreement has a definition of financial institution with some subdefinitions. What we have done in our implementing legislation is to say that there's a specific list of regulated financial institutions that are required to report under the intergovernmental agreement, under our implementation of it. They're suggesting that we've left some stuff off the list, that there's something in the intergovernmental agreement in relation to the definition of a financial institution that is not captured in our list.
The difference seems to be based on the fact that the intergovernmental agreement has kind of a functional definition of what a financial institution does, that is, describing it by its operations, and then says it's to be informed by the Financial Action Task Force's definitions of financial institution. We've taken that Financial Action Task Force definition, which is found in our own anti-money laundering legislation—I'm getting to the end shortly—and we think that actually does conform with the agreement and delivers what was intended.