Mid-Year Developments in Anti-Money Laundering in 2025
Client Alert | August 4, 2025
In this update, we review the most significant trends and developments in anti-money laundering (AML) regulation and enforcement during the first six months of 2025.
President Trump has appointed experienced individuals to high offices at Treasury and DOJ, suggesting that there will be consistency in AML enforcement even where the underlying policy rationale will be focused on administration priorities. Indeed, the first half of 2025 and Trump Administration policy statements indicate that the federal government will continue to aggressively police anti-money laundering generally and particularly as it relates to focal areas of narcotics trafficking and national security broadly defined. At the same time, federal authorities have taken a more deregulatory approach, and reduced some limited-in-scope AML-related regulations that would otherwise complicate the management of businesses. We summarize these developments and more below.
1. Key Appointments at Treasury and DOJ
President Trump has nominated several individuals who have and will continue to shape AML enforcement and policy.
At the Treasury Department, the newly minted Deputy Secretary Michael Faulkender wasted little time articulating the Administration’s regulatory agenda and BSA modernization efforts.[1] In a speech to the 62nd Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group plenary meeting on June 18, 2025, Faulkender emphasized the importance of hearing from “Main Street financial institutions,” stated that Treasury is “working to change the AML/CFT status quo so that the framework focuses on our national security priorities and highest risk areas and explicitly permits financial institutions to de-prioritize lower risks,” and previewed further changes to streamline Suspicious Activity Report and Currency Transaction Report filings.[2]
Separately, our clients are interested in how AML enforcement and guidance will be impacted by John Hurley’s July 23, 2025 confirmation as Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI).[3] Hurley assumes the reins of TFI and oversees the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), along with the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. One major question is whether and to what extent Hurley will retain existing leaders at OFAC and FinCEN or, as has been a pattern in prior administrations, consider new leadership. Andrea Gacki remains the Director of FinCEN, a position she assumed in July 2023 after serving as Director of OFAC for approximately five years, and Brad Smith remains the Director of OFAC, a position he has held since Director Gacki moved from OFAC to FinCEN.
President Trump’s nominees and appointments to the Department of Justice have similarly issued early guidance applicable to AML enforcement and policy. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the former Attorney General for the State of Florida, was confirmed by the Senate on February 5, 2025, and issued a slew of memoranda, discussed below, that same day. Todd Blanche, a former defense attorney and federal prosecutor, was confirmed as Deputy Attorney General on March 6, 2025, and he issued a memorandum addressing prosecution of offenses related to digital assets about a month later. In March 2025, Matthew Galeotti, a former federal prosecutor, was named Head of the Criminal Division, and on June 5, 2025, John Eisenberg, a long-time attorney within government, was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. As described further below, memoranda and guidance issued by Attorney General Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Blanche, and Mr. Galeotti have provided important standards for ongoing AML enforcement, and we anticipate Assistant Attorney General Eisenberg will also shape enforcement.
2. Guidance Documents
a. Executive Orders Deemphasize Regulatory Violations, Unless They Involve Cartels or TCOs
President Trump has issued a series of executive orders that bear on AML guidance and enforcement. As described in the following section, one of the most important orders relates to the government’s focus on cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).
On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at combatting “overcriminalization in federal regulations.”[4] This executive order states that “it is the policy of the United States” that “[c]riminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored,” except as to “the enforcement of the immigration laws or regulations” or “laws or regulations related to national security or defense.” Because the Bank Secrecy Act is a regulatory violation, the Order could deemphasize enforcement of pure BSA violations (such as AML program offenses), except when the violations implicate immigration or national security. Whether the May 9th EO will impact criminal prosecutions remains to be seen, however, since for criminal prosecution the BSA requires the government to establish a defendant acted “willfully,”[5] and the Order recognizes that enforcement “[p]rosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.”
b. AG Memoranda Streamlines Internal DOJ Protocols and Prioritizes Sanctions Evasion and TCOs
Immediately after being sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued 14 memoranda, which foreshadowed a sizable shift in enforcement priorities under the Trump Administration. Although Gibson Dunn has analyzed these memoranda in more depth here and here, this update focuses on the changes most relevant to the Department of Justice’s approach to anti-money laundering enforcement:
- The “Total Elimination” Memorandum seeks to implement President Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order directing that government policy is to ensure the total elimination of cartels and TCOs. Attorney General Bondi directed DOJ resources toward cartels and TCOs, including by making bureaucratic changes to expedite prosecution of such cases, and prioritizing resources from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery section (MLARS), which typically enforces Bank Secrecy Act violations, to prioritize cases relating to cartels and TCOs.[6]
- A separate memorandum describing the Department’s “General Policy Regarding Charging, Plea Negotiations, and Sentencing,” which prioritized immigration enforcement, human trafficking and smuggling, transnational organized crime, cartels, gangs, protecting law enforcement, and shifting resources in the National Security Division. This memorandum also disbanded NSD’s Corporate Enforcement Unit.[7]
Read together with the policies discussed below, Attorney General Bondi’s Memoranda indicate that the Justice Department will continue to prioritize criminal enforcement of national security offenses, including sanctions evasion, which are often investigated alongside money laundering or anti-money laundering violations.
c. Criminal Division Memoranda Refine Corporate Enforcement Priorities
As Gibson Dunn previously reported, the Criminal Division issued four foundational guidance documents in May 2025: a memorandum outlining the new White-Collar Enforcement Plan (Enforcement Plan), an update to the Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (Corporate Enforcement Policy), an update to the Department of Justice Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot program, and an updated memorandum describing the process for implementing monitorships and selecting monitors (collectively, the “May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents”).
The Enforcement Plan lists 10 high-impact areas on which the Criminal Division will be “laser-focused,” including areas that involve violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, and in particular, offenses that implicate sanctions. As laid out in the Enforcement Plan, “exploitation of our financial system” can “enable underlying criminal conduct,” and “[f]inancial institutions, shadow bankers, and other intermediaries aid U.S. adversaries by processing transactions that evade sanctions.” The Enforcement Plan further identifies as priorities:
- “Conduct that threatens the country’s national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by Cartels, TCOs, hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations;”
- “Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs;” and
- With reference to the Digital Assets DAG Memorandum discussed below, “willful [registration and compliance] violations that facilitate significant criminal activity.”
The Enforcement Plan also directs the Criminal Division, which includes MLARS, the Main Justice component which prosecutes and oversees investigations of Bank Secrecy Act violations, to review existing agreements between the Criminal Division and companies to determine whether to terminate any monitorship agreements early based on factors including but not limited to the duration of the post-resolution period, a change in a company’s risk profile, the state of the company’s compliance program, and whether the company self-reported the conduct. This directive may help align previously resolved matters with new guidance limiting the use of independent compliance monitors and revised policies on self-reporting.
Finally, the Criminal Division also expanded the Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which was first announced in August 2024, to cover eligible tips related to the priority areas identified in the Enforcement Plan, while maintaining the Department’s focus on violations by financial institutions or their employees for schemes involving money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.
d. Blanche Memo De-emphasizes Crypto Prosecutions Absent Aggravating Factors
In a significant shift from the prior administration’s oft-criticized focus on bringing cases targeting the crypto industry, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche directed DOJ to “[e]nd[] [r]egulation [b]y [e]nforcement” in the context of digital asset cases, including with respect to enforcement of money transmission laws and Bank Secrecy Act violations.[8]
In an April 7, 2025 Memorandum (Blanche Memo), Deputy Attorney Blanche explained that “[t]he Department of Justice is not a digital assets regulator” and stated that “[t]he Justice Department will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets while President Trump’s actual regulators do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.”[9] Contrasting against areas that DOJ will prioritize—like cases against individuals that “(a) cause financial harm to digital asset investors and consumers; and/or (b) use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct”—the Blanche Memo directs the Department not to pursue “regulatory violations in cases involving digital assets—including but not limited to unlicensed money transmitting under 18 U.S.C. §1960(b)(1)(A) and (B) [or] violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, [or other registration-related charges]—unless there is evidence that the defendant knew of the licensing or registration requirement at issue and violated such a requirement willfully.” The Blanche Memo explains that “matters premised on regulatory violations resulting from diffuse decisions made at lower levels of digital asset companies often fail to advance the priorities of the Department.”
In the first applications of the Blanche Memo, DOJ has dismissed some money transmitting charges brought pursuant to the purely registration violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(A) and (B). However, DOJ has continued prosecutions against the same defendants on theories that the digital asset companies they ran violated the third prong of the money transmitting statute, that prohibits businesses that “otherwise involve[] the transportation or transmission of funds that are known to the defendant to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(C). It remains to be seen how much of an effect the Blanche Memo will have on actual criminal prosecutions brought by DOJ.[10]
e. Relevant Regulatory Actions
The Trump Treasury Department has issued three important regulatory actions related to anti-money laundering.
First, FinCEN and Treasury provided some finality to the obligations of businesses under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). That law was enacted in 2021, and was designed to require certain corporations and other entities to file a beneficial ownership interest report with FinCEN identifying, among other information, the natural persons who are beneficial owners of the entity.[11] In September 2022, FinCEN issued a rule implementing the CTA.[12]
After President Trump’s inauguration and years of litigation, culminating in appeals to the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court, in March 2025, the Department of the Treasury announced[13] and then FinCEN issued an interim final rule, that removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN under the CTA.[14] This Interim Final Rule means that only certain companies, namely those formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in the United States, must file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN, and even then must only disclose information regarding their non-U.S. beneficial owners. FinCEN is also soliciting comments from the public on a permanent rule that the agency intends to adopt later this year.[15]
Second, on March 11, 2025, FinCEN issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) “to further combat the illicit activities and money laundering of Mexico-based cartels and other criminal actors along the southwest border of the United States.”[16] Pursuant to the GTO and the associated Frequently Asked Questions guidance published by FinCEN, all money services businesses located in 30 zip codes must file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs)—complete with details regarding the identity of the person presenting the transaction—with FinCEN for cash transactions totaling at least $200, effectively reducing the $10,000 threshold that typically applies.[17]
Within a few weeks of the GTO, two separate lawsuits were filed challenging its constitutionality. As of this writing, a judge in the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the GTO against the plaintiffs named in the suit before him;[18] and a judge in the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement as to all money services businesses located in the Southern District of California.[19] The cases remain pending in the district courts as the judges decide whether to enter permanent injunctions; the preliminary injunctions are currently on appeal, respectively, to the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.[20]
Third, FinCEN, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), issued a coordinated order that was later also adopted by the Federal Reserve permitting banks to collect Tax Identification Number (TIN) information from a third party rather than from the bank’s customer.[21] This order, issued in response to an interagency request for information, grants an exemption from the Customer Identification Program (CIP) rules[22] applicable to banks.[23] While by its terms, the CIP rules require banks to obtain TIN from their customers before allowing the customers to open accounts, the order allows banks to use an alternative collection method. FinCEN and the banking agencies issued this order after stating that they “recognize that the way customers interact with banks and receive financial services has changed significantly since 2001,” and that the new order “reduces burden by providing banks with greater flexibility in determining how to fulfill their existing regulatory obligations without presenting a heightened risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit finance activity.”
Fourth, as we have previously reported, on July 21, 2025, FinCEN announced that it intends to postpone the effective date for the final IA AML Rule establishing AML/CFT program and SAR filing requirements for SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers.[24] The effective date will be delayed from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2028 to allow for a broader review of the rule’s scope and substance to ensure it is efficient and appropriately tailored. During the postponement period, FinCEN plans to revisit the substance of the IA AML Rule through a future rulemaking process. In addition, FinCEN, in coordination with the SEC, intends to reconsider the joint proposed rule regarding customer identification program requirements for investment advisers.
3. Enforcement Actions
a. End of the Biden Administration
At the end of the Biden Administration, the outgoing SEC resolved a series of actions involving alleged anti-money laundering violations.
i. Broker-Dealer Action
On January 13, 2025, the SEC settled charges with two affiliated broker-dealers relating to a variety of alleged compliance violations.[25] According to the SEC, the alleged deficiencies were remediated in or around June 2022 after the brokers “hired managers and other AML personnel with specialized experience in investigating such activity,” “updated their procedures, implemented additional training and guidance for personnel, implemented a new system for tracking and managing investigations, and implemented a new transaction surveillance system.”[26] One entity agreed to pay a $33.5 million penalty and the other agreed to pay an $11.5 million penalty.[27]
ii. Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser
On January 17, 2025, the SEC sued and settled with a broker-dealer and investment adviser, alleging that from May 2019 through December 2023, the company experienced failures in its customer identification program, including a failure to timely close accounts for which it had not properly verified the customer’s identity.[28] The company also allegedly failed to close or restrict thousands of high-risk accounts, such as cannabis-related and foreign accounts, that were prohibited under the company’s AML policies.[29] According to the SEC, after the SEC contacted the company regarding its investigation, the company retained a third-party compliance consultant to conduct a review and assessment of the company’s CIP and customer due diligence program, and it has taken steps to address the consultant’s recommendations. The company has new personnel in key legal and compliance roles and has increased resources for compliance. The company also agreed to undertake additional remedial steps, and to pay an $18 million fine.[30]
iii. Investment Adviser
On January 14, 2025, the SEC sued and settled with an investment adviser, alleging that the company made misrepresentations with respect to its AML procedures and had compliance failures.[31] Specifically, the SEC alleged that between October 2018 and January 2022, the company made statements in various documents addressed to private fund investors that the firm was compliant with AML due diligence laws even though the company allegedly “did not, in fact, always conduct the AML due diligence as described.”[32] As part of its settlement, the company agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty.[33]
b. Beginning of the Trump Administration
In the first months of the Trump Administration, FinCEN and DOJ have both announced public enforcement actions and resolutions related to the BSA and AML. Some of the most notable actions are discussed below.
i. Seychelles-Based Crypto Exchange
On January 27, 2025, a Seychelles-based cryptocurrency exchange pled guilty to one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.[34] In March 2024, the exchange, along with two of its founders, had been charged with violations of the BSA and operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business.[35] According to that initial Indictment, the exchange had allegedly operated as a money transmitting business by operating in the United States without registering as an MSB with FinCEN or implementing an adequate AML program.[36]
As part of its plea agreement, the exchange agreed to criminally forfeit $184.5 million and pay a criminal fine of approximately $112.9 million. The exchange also agreed to exit the U.S. market for at least the next two years, and the charged founders reached deferred prosecution agreements whereby they agreed to no longer have any role in the exchange’s management or operations.
ii. Seychelles-Based Crypto Exchange
On February 24, 2025, a different Seychelles-based cryptocurrency exchange pled guilty to one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.[37] According to DOJ, the exchange allegedly operated as an unlicensed money transmitting business in the United States, without registering with FinCEN or implementing an adequate AML program. In total, the company agreed to pay monetary penalties totaling more than $504 million.
iii. Armored Car Company
On February 6, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California announced an NPA,[38] and FinCEN announced a consent order, with an armored car service company.[39] The company allegedly failed to register with FinCEN as a money services business or implement an effective AML program. The company agreed to pay approximately $42 million in penalties, and agreed to an AML program review.
iv. FinCEN 311 Action Against Cambodia Financial Services Conglomerate
On May 1, 2025, FinCEN issued a proposed rule that identified Huione Group—a Cambodia-based financial institution—as a “primary money laundering concern pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act”[40] According to FinCEN, Huione Group has been critical for laundering proceeds of cyber heists by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and for convertible virtual currency scams conducted by transnational criminal organizations in Southeast Asia.[41] The rule effectively prohibits U.S. financial institutions from engaging in financial transactions with Huione Group.[42]
v. Application of Statute to Target Illicit Opioid Trafficking
On June 25, 2025, FinCEN issued three orders that identified Mexico-based financial institutions—CIBanco S.A., Institution de Banca Multiple (CIBanco), Intercam Banco S.A., Institución de Banca Multiple (Intercam), and Vector Casa de Bolsa, S.A. de C.V. (Vector)—as “primary money laundering concern[s] in connection with illicit opioid trafficking.”[43] The orders effectively prohibit U.S. financial institutions from engaging in financial transactions with the three entities. According to FinCEN, the entities have “collectively played a longstanding and vital role in laundering millions of dollars on behalf of Mexico-based cartels” and have facilitated payments to China-based companies for the “procurement of precursor chemicals needed to produce fentanyl.”[44] These orders are notable as they are the first orders issued by FinCEN pursuant to the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act. FinCEN stated that this action reflects an unprecedented commitment by FinCEN to “us[e] all tools at [its] disposal” to target financial institutions that may aid “criminal and terrorist organizations trafficking fentanyl and other narcotics.”[45]
4. State Regulators
When President Trump was elected, there was much speculation that certain state regulators would become more aggressive, in light of the anticipated deregulatory federal environment. So far, that appears to have been borne out, as state regulators have been active in bringing actions under the BSA.
a. Casino
On May 15, 2025, the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) imposed a $5.5 million fine on a casino for “activities related to unregistered money transmitting businesses, facilitating international monetary transactions, [and] allowing proxy betting and other prohibited monetary transactions.”[46] According to NGCB, former employees of the casino allegedly “allowed international patrons to obtain and/or transfer money improperly for the purposes of wagering, and also allowed wagers to be placed for other patrons at” the casino.[47] As part of its settlement, the casino agreed to improve its AML program and provide employee training in AML requirements.[48]
b. Licensed Money Transmitter
On July 9, 2025, DFS and state regulators from Massachusetts, Texas, California, Minnesota, and Nebraska entered into a consent order with a licensed money transmitter related to alleged inadequacies in the company’s BSA/AML/CFT program. The company agreed to pay a $4.2 million penalty and take a number of corrective actions to remediate alleged deficiencies in its AML/CFT Program, including conducting a lookback for previously closed accounts, enhancing its reporting procedures for suspicious activity, strengthening its due diligence procedures for AML/CFT risk, and improving its systems for data integrity regarding customer accounts.[49]
Conclusion
The first half of 2025 was notable as the new Administration refined its enforcement priorities and the effects of those changes began to take root. We anticipate that the remainder of 2025 will be similarly active, as the Trump Administration relies on AML enforcement as a way to advance its own policy priorities involving national security and TCO offenses. We will continue to monitor these developments and report accordingly on steps individuals and entities should take to navigate the ever-changing regulatory regime.
[1] Press Release, Dep’t of Treasury, Deputy Secretary Faulkender Lays Out Guiding Principles for Bank Secrecy Act Modernization (June 18, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0173. The Treasury Department designates Faulkender as acting essentially as a Chief Operating Officer for the Department. See Michael Faulkender, https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/officials/michael-faulkender. Faulkender is thus responsible for overseeing the formulation and implementation of policies and programs at Treasury, including those pertaining to the Bank Secrecy Act.
[2] Press Release, Dep’t of Treasury, Deputy Secretary Faulkender Lays Out Guiding Principles for Bank Secrecy Act Modernization (June 18, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0173.
[3] Press Release, Dep’t of Treasury, John Hurley Confirmed by the United States Senate (July 23, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0204. Hurley is a former hedge fund manager, who served on President Trump’s first-term Intelligence Advisory Board.
[4] Executive Order, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations (May 9, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/fighting-overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/. For further insight and analysis, please see our client alert. Gibson Dunn: New Executive Order Seeks to Combat “Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” (May 16, 2025).
[5] 31 U.S.C. § 5322.
[6] Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388546/dl?inline.
[7] General Policy Regarding Charging, Plea Negotiations, and Sentencing (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388541/dl?inline.
[8] Ending Regulation by Prosecution (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1395781/dl?inline.
[9] Id.
[10] Gibson Dunn attorneys provided more thoughts on this topic in a Law 360 Article analyzing the Blanche Memo.
[11] See William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. 116-283, Division F; 31 U.S.C. § 5336.
[12] FinCEN, Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59498.
[13] Press Release, Dep’t of Treasury, Treasury Department Announces Suspension of Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0038.
[14] Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision and Deadline Extension, 90 Fed. Reg. 13688.
[15] For the history of the litigation and Gibson Dunn’s prior client alerts, please see Gibson Dunn’s Corporate Transparency Act Resource Center: Insights and Updates.
[16] Press Release, FinCEN, FinCEN Issues Southwest Border Geographic Targeting Order (Mar. 11, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-southwest-border-geographic-targeting-order.
[17] Id.; see also Updated Geographic Targeting Order Involving Certain Money Services.
Businesses in California and Texas on the Southwest Border, Frequently Asked Questions (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/SWB-MSB-GTO-Order-FINAL508.pdf.
[18] Texas Ass’n of Money Servs. Businesses v. Bondi, No. CV SA-25-CA-00344-FB, 2025 WL 1540621, 13–16 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2025).
[19] Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN, No. 25-CV-886 JLS (DDL), 2025 WL 1501936, at *8–10, 22 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2025).
[20] Texas Ass’n of Money Servs. Businesses v. Bondi, No. 25-50481 (5th Cir.); Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN, No. 25-4238 (9th Cir.).
[21] Press Release, FinCEN, FinCEN Permits Banks to Use Alternative Collection Method for Obtaining TIN Information (June 27, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-permits-banks-use-alternative-collection-method-obtaining-tin-information; Press Release, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Reserve Board joins other federal financial institution regulatory agencies in providing banks the flexibility to use an alternative method for collecting certain customer identification information (July 31, 2025), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20250731a.htm.
[22] 31 C.F.R. § 1020.220; 12 C.F.R. § 21.21(c)(2); 12 C.F.R. § 326.8(b)(2); and 12 C.F.R. § 748.2(b)(2).
[23] A “bank” is defined in the BSA and its associated regulations as including each agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States of banks, savings associations, credit unions, and foreign banks. 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(d). The exemption applies only to those banks subject to the jurisdiction of the OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.
[24] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Treasury Announces Postponement and Reopening of Investment Adviser Rule (July 21, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0201; Press Release, FinCEN, Treasury Announces Postponement and Reopening of Investment Adviser Rule (July 21, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/treasury-announces-postponement-and-reopening-investment-adviser-rule.
[25] SEC Order Instituting Administrative and Cease and Desist Proceedings at ¶ 5 (Jan. 13, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-102170.pdf.
[26] Id. at ¶¶ 64–66.
[27] Press Release, Securities and Exchange Commission (Jan. 13, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-5.
[28] Press Release, Securities and Exchange Commission (Jan. 17, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-17.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Press Release, Securities and Exchange Commission (Jan. 14, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-8.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Press Release, Dep’t of Justice (Jan. 27, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/kucoin-pleads-guilty-unlicensed-money-transmission-charge-and-agrees-pay-penalties; United States v. Peken Global Limited et al., 24 Cr. 168 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 19 (Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture/Money Judgment).
[35] United States v. Peken Global Limited et al., 24 Cr. 168 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 (Sealed Indictment).
[36] Id.
[37] Press Release, Dep’t of Justice (Feb. 24, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/okx-pleads-guilty-violating-us-anti-money-laundering-laws-and-agrees-pay-penalties.
[38] Press Release, Dep’t of Justice (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/brinks-forfeits-50-million-failing-register-money-transmitting-business; https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/media/1388711/dl?inline.
[39] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-announces-37000000-civil-money-penalty-against-brinks-global-services-usa.
[40] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, FinCEN, FinCEN Finds Cambodia-Based Huione Group to be of Primary Money Laundering Concern, Proposes a Rule to Combat Cyber Scams and Heists (May 1, 2025), https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-finds-cambodia-based-huione-group-be-primary-money-laundering-concern.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, FinCEN, Treasury Issues Historic Orders under Powerful New Authority to Counter Fentanyl (Jun. 25, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0179.
[44] Id.
[45] Id. To see more about these orders, please review the Gibson Dunn client alert.
[46] Press Release, Nevada Gaming Control Board (May 15, 2025), https://gaming.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/gamingnvgov/content/Home/Features/News%20Release%20-%20NGCB-Wynn%20LV%20(15May2025).pdf.
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Press Release (July 9, 2025), https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr20250709; https://www.dfs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/ea20250709-co-mse-wise-us-inc.pdf (Consent Order).
Gibson Dunn has deep experience with issues relating to the Bank Secrecy Act, other AML and sanctions laws and regulations, and the defense of financial institutions more broadly. For assistance navigating white collar or regulatory enforcement issues involving financial institutions, please contact any of the authors, the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or any of the leaders and members of the firm’s Anti-Money Laundering / Financial Institutions, Financial Regulatory, White Collar Defense & Investigations, or International Trade practice groups:
Anti-Money Laundering / Financial Institutions:
Stephanie Brooker – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
M. Kendall Day – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)
Ella Alves Capone – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3511, ecapone@gibsondunn.com)
Sam Raymond – New York (+1 212.351.2499, sraymond@gibsondunn.com)
White Collar Defense and Investigations:
Stephanie Brooker – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
Winston Y. Chan – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8362, wchan@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
F. Joseph Warin – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3609, fwarin@gibsondunn.com)
Global Fintech and Digital Assets:
M. Kendall Day – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)
Jeffrey L. Steiner – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
Sara K. Weed – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8507, sweed@gibsondunn.com)
Global Financial Regulatory:
William R. Hallatt – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner – London (:+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Jeffrey L. Steiner – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
International Trade:
Ronald Kirk – Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.