Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

FinCEN Files

The FinCEN Files comprise over 2,100 leaked from the U.S. Treasury's , documenting financial institutions' notifications of more than $2 trillion in transactions flagged as potentially suspicious between 1999 and 2017. These , required under the for banks to report activities that may indicate , , or other illicit conduct, represent preliminary alerts rather than confirmed criminality, as institutions file them defensively to mitigate regulatory penalties. The documents were unlawfully disclosed in September 2020 by a FinCEN intelligence analyst and subsequently published by in partnership with the (ICIJ), which coordinated analysis across 140 outlets in 88 countries. FinCEN condemned the breach as a federal crime that jeopardizes and active investigations by exposing confidential data intended solely for use. Major global banks, including , , and , featured prominently in the for handling repeated high-value wires tied to high-risk entities and jurisdictions, such as those linked to Malaysian state fund scandals or , underscoring gaps in transaction monitoring despite post-2001 regulatory enhancements. However, the filings often reflect institutional caution amid ambiguous indicators, with limited subsequent prosecutions highlighting the system's reliance on volume-based reporting over precise . Debates ensued over the leaks' implications, with proponents viewing them as evidence of entrenched AML shortcomings—evident in the trillions flagged yet processed—and critics cautioning against conflating suspicions with proven flows, as SAR confidentiality fosters investigative efficacy while over-reporting burdens the system without curbing underlying risks. The episode prompted no immediate U.S. policy shifts but intensified scrutiny on correspondent banking vulnerabilities and the efficacy of self-reported in a decentralized financial .

Origins and Context of the Documents

Establishment and Mandate of FinCEN

The (FinCEN) was established on April 25, 1990, by Treasury Order Number 105-08 issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Its initial purpose was to create a government-wide computerized access service for financial transaction data collected under the (BSA) of 1970, enabling the application of advanced analytical technologies to detect patterns of financial crimes such as and . This establishment responded to growing concerns over organized crime's use of financial systems, positioning FinCEN as a centralized hub for rather than a traditional regulatory body. FinCEN's legal foundation was codified in 31 U.S.C. § 310, which designates it as a within the Department of the Treasury and outlines its core authorities. Subsequent Treasury Order 180-01 further defined its structure and director's responsibilities, emphasizing its role in and intelligence sharing. Over time, legislative expansions, including the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, broadened its scope to include enhanced tools for investigating , while the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 reinforced its regulatory oversight. FinCEN's mandate centers on safeguarding the U.S. from illicit use by maintaining, analyzing, and disseminating financial transaction data to combat , terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. As the U.S. , it enforces the BSA by requiring to file reports on suspicious activities, large transactions exceeding $10,000, and foreign accounts, while identifying trends and supporting at federal, state, local, and international levels. This involves regulatory enforcement, public-private partnerships, and strategic intelligence dissemination to promote national security, with FinCEN serving as a non-regulatory counterpart to agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Nature and Purpose of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs)

Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are standardized, confidential forms filed electronically by financial institutions with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, to document transactions or patterns of activity indicative of potential criminal violations or illicit financial conduct. These reports capture details such as the involved parties, transaction amounts, dates, and narrative descriptions of the suspicious elements, enabling FinCEN to centralize and analyze data across the financial system. The core purpose of is to facilitate the detection, prevention, and investigation of financial crimes, including , terrorist financing, , and to evade reporting requirements, by providing and regulatory agencies with actionable intelligence derived from private-sector observations. Mandated under the (BSA) of 1970, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, SARs empower authorities to connect disparate transaction data points that might otherwise remain siloed within individual institutions, thereby supporting broader efforts to disrupt criminal networks without requiring financial institutions to conduct full investigations themselves. Financial institutions must file a if they know, suspect, or have reason to suspect that a involves at least $5,000 in funds or assets and appears designed to evade BSA requirements, facilitate illegal activity, or lacks a legitimate purpose, with filings required no later than 30 calendar days after initial detection—or 60 days if the suspect's identity remains unknown. do not constitute formal accusations or evidence of wrongdoing but serve as preliminary flags prompting further regulatory or prosecutorial review, with FinCEN distributing relevant reports to agencies like the FBI, IRS, and Department of Justice for targeted inquiries. Confidentiality is a defining feature of , prohibiting financial institutions from notifying reported parties of the filing and shielding the reports from civil discovery or public disclosure to prevent tipping off suspects and undermining investigations. This regime, enforced through civil and criminal penalties, underscores ' role as a non-public intelligence tool rather than a public record, though institutions retain supporting documentation for five years to verify during examinations.

Historical Volume and Filing Requirements for SARs

Financial institutions subject to the (BSA) must file a (SAR) upon detecting any transaction or series of transactions aggregating $5,000 or more ($2,000 for money services businesses) that lack a business or apparent lawful purpose or involve known or suspected criminal violations of or regulations. must be filed electronically through the BSA E-Filing System no later than 30 calendar days after the initial detection of relevant facts. For ongoing suspicious activity, institutions should file updated at least every 90 days until resolution or closure of the , per FinCEN guidance. confidentiality is strictly enforced under BSA provisions, prohibiting except in limited circumstances aligned with official duties. Electronic filing became mandatory on April 1, 2013, using FinCEN Form 111; prior paper-based or legacy forms ceased acceptance thereafter. These requirements stem from BSA regulations implemented by the Department of the Treasury to combat and other financial crimes, with expansions via the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 broadening covered institutions and suspicious indicators. SAR filings originated in 1996, supplanting earlier Criminal Referral Forms, with 109,887 reports submitted from April 1996 through September 1997. Annual volumes grew steadily, surpassing 1 million for the first time in 2006 amid heightened scrutiny and regulatory emphasis on anti-money laundering compliance.
YearTotal SARs Filed
1996–1997109,887 (partial period)
2006>1,000,000
20192,751,694
FY 20234,600,000
This growth trajectory reflects broader adoption of automated monitoring systems, inclusion of additional institution types like money services businesses, and response to evolving threats such as cyber-enabled , though filings dipped slightly in 2010 by 3% from 2009 levels before resuming upward trends. In 2019, banks accounted for 54.4% of filings and money services businesses 32.9%, underscoring concentration among deposit-taking entities and non-bank financial operators. FinCEN tracks these metrics by industry via public dashboards, enabling analysis of trends from onward, though comprehensive pre-2014 aggregates rely on periodic agency reviews.

The Leak and Its Acquisition

Initial Obtaining of the Files

The FinCEN Files originated from unauthorized disclosures by Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser for intelligence at the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to BuzzFeed News reporter Jason Leopold. Edwards began transmitting confidential suspicious activity reports (SARs) and related documents to Leopold in 2017, using encrypted applications to share over 2,000 SARs and more than 50,000 additional files covering transactions flagged between 1999 and 2017. These documents, which included details on high-profile figures such as Paul Manafort and broader patterns of suspicious banking activity, formed the core of the dataset later known as the FinCEN Files. Edwards' disclosures were motivated by her belief that FinCEN had failed to act on internal complaints regarding systemic risks, prompting her to provide the materials to expose what she described as ignored evidence of financial misconduct. However, the constituted classified national defense information protected under U.S. , and her actions violated statutes prohibiting unauthorized release of such , as determined by prosecutors. first utilized portions of these leaks in reporting starting in 2018, including stories on politically sensitive transactions, before compiling them into the larger FinCEN Files trove shared with the (ICIJ) for collaborative analysis. Federal authorities arrested Edwards in October 2018 following an FBI investigation into the leaks, charging her with conspiracy to unlawfully disclose SARs. She pleaded guilty in January 2020 to one count of conspiracy to make unauthorized disclosures, acknowledging the illegal nature of the transmissions. In June 2021, a U.S. District Court sentenced her to six months in prison, reflecting the gravity of compromising sensitive financial intelligence used in countering illicit finance, though her defense argued the leaks served a public interest in revealing regulatory shortcomings. The case underscored tensions between whistleblower protections and the confidentiality requirements of SARs, which are filed by financial institutions to alert regulators to potential crimes without public disclosure.

Key Entities Involved in the Leak

The leak of the FinCEN Files originated from Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of the Treasury's (FinCEN) from 2015 to 2018, who unlawfully disclosed over 2,100 (SARs) and related sensitive documents to a . Edwards, who had access to FinCEN's secure database, transmitted these materials starting in 2017, motivated by her internal whistleblower complaints about FinCEN's handling of risks, which she claimed were ignored by agency leadership. She pleaded guilty in January 2020 to one count of conspiring to unlawfully disclose , admitting to sending the documents via encrypted channels, and was sentenced in June 2021 to six months in prison plus three years of supervised release. Edwards directed the leaks to Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter at , who received approximately 2,657 documents covering SARs filed between 1999 and 2017, detailing over $2 trillion in suspicious transactions. , upon obtaining the files in 2019, conducted initial verification and analysis, confirming their authenticity through cross-referencing with and prior reporting on financial crimes. The outlet then shared the dataset with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a nonprofit network coordinating global collaborative journalism, which expanded the review involving over 600 journalists from 108 media partners across 88 countries over 16 months. FinCEN, as the federal agency tasked with collecting and analyzing under the , served as the unwitting origin of the leaked data, with Edwards exploiting her role in to extract files from its confidential systems. No evidence emerged of broader institutional involvement in the unauthorized release, though Edwards' actions prompted U.S. authorities, including the FBI and Department of Justice, to investigate the breach, leading to her in June 2018. The leaks highlighted vulnerabilities in handling classified but did not implicate other FinCEN personnel.

Timeline of the Leak from 2018 to 2020

In 2018, BuzzFeed News obtained a cache of over 2,100 suspicious activity reports (SARs) through leaks from Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser at FinCEN, who disclosed confidential financial intelligence documents to BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold as part of a series of unauthorized releases spanning from October 2017 to her arrest in October 2018. These SARs, covering suspicious transactions from 1999 to 2017, formed the core of the FinCEN Files dataset. BuzzFeed News subsequently shared the documents with the (ICIJ) and more than 100 media partners across 88 countries, initiating a collaborative analysis effort that lasted approximately 16 months, beginning around May 2019. In January 2020, Edwards pleaded guilty to charges related to her unauthorized disclosures of to BuzzFeed News, though she was not specifically charged for the full FinCEN Files trove; she maintained the leaks were efforts to expose systemic issues after internal channels failed. On September 1, 2020, FinCEN issued a acknowledging the impending publication of leaked SARs and referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice and Treasury's Office of for investigation into the breach. The coordinated reporting culminated on September 20, 2020, when , ICIJ, and partners published the FinCEN Files investigation, detailing over $2 trillion in flagged transactions and highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in global anti-money laundering systems.

Journalistic Processing and Reporting

Data Analysis by BuzzFeed News and ICIJ

received a leak of more than 2,100 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed with the U.S. (FinCEN), along with approximately 22,000 pages of supporting documents, covering suspicious transactions totaling over $2 trillion primarily between 1999 and 2017, with 98% of SARs filed from 2011 onward. The organization shared this dataset with the (ICIJ), which coordinated analysis involving over 85 journalists from more than 100 media partners across 88 countries. The SARs originated from filings by global financial institutions and detailed potential risks, though they represent unverified suspicions rather than proven illicit activity, and constitute only a fraction of the millions of SARs submitted to FinCEN annually. Analysis began with manual processing of the documents, including reading over 8,000 pages of descriptions—equivalent to about 3 million words—to structured on entities, transactions, and relationships, as automated from free-text proved infeasible. Teams used to parse tables embedded in , supplemented by SQL and scripts for entity resolution and verification to compile approximately 55,000 encompassing over 200,000 individual . Challenges included inconsistencies in bank-submitted formats and the need to standardize varied reporting details, such as information and dates. ICIJ supplemented the leaked with over 17,600 additional obtained via Act requests to contextualize patterns. Further analysis employed network mapping tools like and Linkurious to visualize connections among banks, shell companies, and beneficiaries across 400 processed spreadsheets, revealing correspondent banking flows where intermediary institutions handled transactions without full visibility into ultimate parties. Aggregated metrics highlighted delays, with a median lag of 166 days from detection to filing despite regulatory 30-day requirements, and frequent involvement of unknown entities in over 50% of transactions. emerged as a primary filer, linked to covering $982 billion in suspicious activity, while flagged $335 billion in a single 2014 report. These efforts produced searchable databases and visualizations, such as interactive maps of $35 billion in flagged transactions, but analysts emphasized that the dataset's selectivity—focusing on high-value or networked cases—limits generalizability to overall trends.

Selection Criteria for Stories

Journalists from and the (ICIJ), in collaboration with over 100 media partners across 88 countries, selected stories from the FinCEN Files based on criteria emphasizing systemic patterns, high-impact revelations, and rather than exhaustive coverage of all 2,100 leaked suspicious activity reports (). The process prioritized transactions and entities indicative of broader failures in global anti-money laundering efforts, such as repeated flagging of the same accounts despite prior warnings, to highlight how banks processed over $2 trillion in suspicious funds between 1999 and 2017 without halting flows. Key selection factors included the scale of transactions, with emphasis on high-value cases—such as the 130 SARs exceeding $1 billion each—and aggregate volumes tied to specific entities, like $9.3 billion linked to gold trader Kaloti or discrepancies in UK limited liability partnerships totaling $4.5 billion. Stories were chosen for connections to corruption, fraud, embezzlement, sanctions evasion, or high-risk jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands, which appeared in 20% of reports, often involving shell companies with opaque ownership. Notable subjects, including Forbes-listed billionaires, political leaders, fraudsters, and frequent filers like forex broker Mayzus, were highlighted to illustrate personal and institutional involvement in suspicious networks. The criteria also assessed public impact and transparency value, avoiding mass publication of raw to focus on narratives revealing regulatory gaps, such as banks' continued processing of flagged payments post-fines (e.g., HSBC's $1.9 billion penalty in 2012). Selection involved manual verification of over 200,000 transactions and cross-referencing with , documents, and interviews, ensuring stories demonstrated causal links between suspicious activity and real-world consequences like enabling crime or evading sanctions. This targeted approach, refined over 16 months of analysis using tools like SQL, , and custom platforms, resulted in selective releases via ICIJ's DocumentCloud, prioritizing empirical evidence of persistent vulnerabilities over unverified suspicions inherent in .

Publication Strategy and Media Partners

BuzzFeed News shared the leaked documents with the (ICIJ) in early 2019, initiating a collaborative effort that expanded to include 108 partners across 88 countries. This partnership assembled a team of over 400 journalists, researchers, and data specialists for a 16-month focused on analyzing patterns in the rather than pursuing isolated criminal cases, given the confidential nature and unverified suspicions in the reports. The publication strategy prioritized simultaneous global release on September 20, 2020, to amplify impact and prevent fragmented coverage, mirroring ICIJ's approach in prior projects like the . Stories were selected based on criteria such as transaction volumes exceeding $100 million, repeated flagging of entities, and involvement of major banks like and , with emphasis on systemic failures in correspondent banking over individual prosecutions. Data processing involved custom software for extracting structured information from SAR tables and manual review of narratives totaling over 3 million words, coordinated via ICIJ's secure platform to enable cross-verification among partners. Media partners encompassed outlets such as the , , , and the , facilitating localized reporting on regional flows like those tied to Eastern European oligarchs or Latin American cartels. This network divided analytical tasks—such as standardizing spreadsheets and tracing entity networks—among more than 80 reporters, ensuring comprehensive coverage of over $2 trillion in flagged transactions from 1999 to 2017. The coordinated rollout included elements, like interactive databases, to illustrate laundering risks without implying guilt from SAR filings alone.

Empirical Findings from the SARs

Aggregate Transaction Volumes and Patterns (1999–2017)

The FinCEN Files encompass 2,121 that detail over 200,000 flagged transactions aggregating more than $2 trillion in value, with activities spanning 1999 to 2017. These , primarily submitted by global banks between 2011 and 2017, capture wire transfers and other deemed potentially indicative of illicit finance, though not proven criminality. The data reflect a subset of total SAR filings to FinCEN during this period, highlighting systemic patterns in payment flows rather than exhaustive coverage. Volume concentration emerged as a key pattern, with 130 SARs each exceeding $1 billion in flagged amounts comprising over 90% of the total value, underscoring reliance on high-value, cross-border wires. Disproportionate processing occurred at major institutions: handled $514 billion in suspicious transactions, while managed $1.3 trillion, often via correspondent banking for foreign entities despite earlier U.S. fines for AML lapses. , , and Bank of New York Mellon similarly featured in repeated high-volume flags involving oligarchs, criminals, and sanctioned parties. Geographic and entity patterns showed involvement from over 170 countries, with U.S., , U.K., , and UAE origins prominent in SAR narratives; top-flagged subjects included forex broker Mayzus Financial Services (36 SARs) and dealer Kaloti International (34 SARs). In roughly 50% of reports, banks reported incomplete data on beneficiaries or transaction rationales, facilitating opaque flows through shell companies and layered accounts. Temporal trends indicated sustained activity by persistent actors, such as fraud rings and corrupt officials, evading detection across years via recurring banking relationships.

Role of Shell Companies and Correspondent Banking

Shell companies, lacking significant operations or physical presence and often incorporated in secrecy jurisdictions, were central to obscuring in many suspicious transactions flagged in the FinCEN Files . Analysis of the over 2,100 leaked reports revealed shell companies in more than 620 instances, enabling the of funds across multiple entities to evade detection. More than 20% of these were linked to offshore havens including the , , , , , , and , where lax transparency rules facilitated anonymous control. Financial institutions frequently reported in SARs an inability to verify ultimate beneficial owners due to incomplete or falsified documentation from shell entities, with over 680 reports citing missing ownership details. For instance, UK-registered limited liability partnerships showed discrepancies exceeding $4.5 billion in transaction volumes compared to filings with Companies House, highlighting underreported flows through these vehicles. Such structures were exploited in patterns like rapid fund inflows and outflows, round-tripping, and integration with trade-based schemes, contributing to the broader $2 trillion in suspicious wire transfers documented from 1999 to 2017. Correspondent banking amplified these risks by providing foreign banks—particularly from high-risk areas—with access to U.S. clearing via accounts at major global institutions, often without adequate oversight of nested relationships. in the FinCEN Files implicated correspondent accounts in jurisdictions like and , where foreign banks routed suspicious payments through U.S.-linked correspondents, accounting for substantial portions of flagged volumes; alone filed 982 covering 62% of the analyzed suspicious transactions. This mechanism allowed shell company networks to move funds seamlessly across borders, as seen in cases involving former Soviet state actors using and shells via Estonian bank branches for laundering. Examples from the files underscore the interplay: Iranian sanctions evasion networks, such as those operated by , employed shell companies and couriers to transfer billions in cash and gold equivalents through channels, bypassing restrictions. Similarly, North Korean operatives laundered funds via Chinese firms and shells accessing U.S. banks' services. These patterns, while not proving criminality, illustrated systemic vulnerabilities where shell opacity combined with access enabled high-volume, cross-jurisdictional flows flagged for potential , corruption, and sanctions violations.

Notable Entities and Transaction Flags

filed SARs covering $1.31 trillion in suspicious transactions from 2010 to 2017, accounting for 62% of the total value in the leaked files, primarily involving wire transfers routed through Latvian banks such as ABLV Bank, which facilitated billions in funds from clients despite known risks. reported $514 billion in flagged activity over the same period, including transfers linked to commodity firms like and patterns of funds moving through shell companies in high-risk jurisdictions. and also featured prominently, with SARs highlighting their roles in processing billions tied to sanctioned entities and politically exposed persons () from regions including . Notable non-bank entities included Russian state-linked firms such as affiliates, where flagged multimillion-dollar payments to opaque intermediaries potentially evading sanctions or concealing illicit origins, often via correspondent banking networks. companies domiciled in tax havens like the and appeared in over half the reports, frequently lacking verifiable or economic purpose, serving as conduits for suspicious funds across borders. Key transaction flags in the SARs encompassed rapid, high-volume wire transfers exceeding $1 million in round amounts, inconsistent customer (e.g., incomplete entity details in 50% of cases), and links to high-risk indicators such as sanctioned countries, , or sectors prone to like and commodities. These patterns persisted despite prior regulatory fines, with banks continuing relationships that enabled the movement of funds flagged for potential ties to drug cartels, kleptocrats, and terrorist financiers.

Regional and Sectoral Breakdowns

Patterns in Africa and Middle East

In , the FinCEN Files revealed patterns of suspicious transactions tied to among political elites, illicit in natural resources such as , , and , and dealings facilitated by companies and opaque correspondent banking relationships. SARs flagged over $100 million in gold-related flows in alone, involving entities suspected of laundering proceeds from unregulated mining and smuggling operations. In , a single untraceable moved $620 million in suspicious funds between 2011 and 2017, with banks unable to verify the ultimate beneficiaries despite red flags for potential . featured prominently, with payments to associates of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, including his wives, scrutinized for links to dating back to 2006. Liberia's Golden Vision Trading was implicated in $11 million of flagged transactions in 2013, routed through U.S. banks and tied to broader networks. saw over 100 SARs connected to athletics corruption involving Lamine Diack, who allegedly funneled millions through shadowy intermediaries for and doping schemes. South African banks handled 173 suspicious transactions flagged in the files, often involving cross-border flows from high-risk jurisdictions. North African reporting highlighted resource extraction vulnerabilities, exemplified by Algeria's state oil firm , where reported $3.9 billion in suspicious payments in March 2015, involving subsidiaries in and the and four employees suspected of kickbacks. Morocco's cases included a 2013 gold smuggling operation using fake customs documents from airport, linked to Dubai-based Kaloti Jewelrefinery and drug networks run by the Ech Chaouti brothers. Tunisia's SARs exposed millions in payments tied to Lamine Diack's international athletics bribery, affecting local athlete Habib Ghribi and routed to opaque entities for influence peddling. These patterns underscored systemic risks in state-owned enterprises and commodity trades, with annual illicit financial outflows from estimated at $88 billion, though the files captured only a fraction via U.S.-flagged SARs. In the , pointed to sanctions evasion, particularly around , and oil sector , with the UAE emerging as a conduit for high-volume suspicious flows. Dubai-based Gunes General Trading transferred $142 million between 2011 and 2012 to entities evading U.S. sanctions on , despite prior warnings to the UAE central bank, using U.S. correspondent accounts at . received $1.5 billion in flagged transfers from Brazil's , reported by due to underlying and risks in oil deals. Broader patterns involved front companies in the UAE and facilitating arms and oil trades, including a Serbian dealer's network routing funds to via Qatari trusts, evading transparency requirements. These transactions, often exceeding hundreds of millions, exploited lax oversight in free zones and correspondent banking to mask origins in sanctioned or corrupt activities.

Patterns in Asia and Oceania

The FinCEN Files highlighted patterns of suspicious cross-border transactions in involving remittance firms, fugitive financiers, terrorist networks, and corruption scandals, with banks often processing flagged payments despite internal concerns. In the , remittance companies facilitated millions in suspicious transfers, including funds linked to the 2016 $81 million cyber-heist from Bangladesh Bank's account at the of . Malaysian investigations pointed to handling over $1 billion in transactions for , the fugitive financier central to the 1MDB embezzlement scheme involving billions in public funds. These cases underscored delays in halting high-risk flows from politically exposed persons and kleptocrats. India featured prominently with SARs flagging $14.46 million transferred to entities in the amid broader concerns over opaque corporate dealings, alongside $3 million tied to (IPL) fraud. Pakistan-based operator Altaf Khanani's network, which laundered an estimated $14-16 billion annually, routed funds through Asian corridors to support terrorist groups like and associates of , with U.S. banks processing related wires despite sanctions risks. In , a for Tokyo's Olympic bid transferred $370,000 to the son of an member, raising flags for potential bid-rigging influence peddling. Other Asian nations, including , , , , and , showed similar trends of weak compliance in high-risk jurisdictions, often involving shell companies and rapid fund layering. In , emerged as a conduit for suspicious cash deposits via money , with documenting billions in potentially illicit funds entering the system. banks, including and , were implicated in processing transactions from remitters depositing physical cash bags, often linked to global laundering networks evading detection through fragmented reporting. These patterns reflected vulnerabilities in cash-heavy remittance channels, though volumes specific to Oceania were not isolated in the leaked SARs beyond aggregate global flows exceeding $2 trillion from 1999 to 2017.

Patterns in Europe

Deutsche Bank, 's largest bank by assets, featured prominently in the FinCEN Files, accounting for 62% of the 2,100 leaked with suspicious transactions exceeding $1 trillion from 1999 to 2017, often routed through its U.S. banking operations. These reports flagged patterns of high-volume U.S. dollar payments to and from high-risk jurisdictions, including repeated dealings with entities linked to networks despite prior regulatory fines, such as the $630 million penalty in 2017 for facilitating over $10 billion in mirror trades between 2011 and 2015. Mirror trades involved simultaneous but offsetting securities purchases and sales across and desks to disguise fund origins, primarily laundering proceeds from state-owned entities and oligarchs. In the , Danske Bank's branch processed up to $230 billion in suspicious cross-border payments from 2007 to 2015, utilizing networks of UK-registered partnerships (LLPs) and limited partnerships (LPs) mass-produced by secretive agencies for clients from , , and other former Soviet states. detailed specific conduits, such as Hilux Services LP handling $2.9 billion in flagged transfers, often with forged signatures and nominee directors obscuring , while as correspondent bank cleared $150 billion for these clients. Latvian institutions like Expobank similarly routed $29 billion in suspicious flows, highlighting Eastern Europe's role as a transit hub for non-resident accounts evading local oversight. UK shell company factories enabled these patterns by registering thousands of opaque entities with false financial statements submitted to , facilitating anonymous layering of illicit funds before onward transmission via European banks like and . Banks across 25 member states appeared as origins, destinations, or intermediaries in the SARs, underscoring systemic vulnerabilities in correspondent banking and lax on politically exposed persons and sanctioned-linked entities. Overall, the files revealed as a key node in global suspicious USD flows, with SAR filers noting persistent red flags like rapid fund accumulation, mismatched trade documentation, and ties to sanctioned regimes despite post-2015 regulatory enhancements.

Patterns in North and South America

In , the FinCEN Files highlighted the role of major U.S. banks in processing suspicious transactions originating from or routed through the region, including over $100 million in funds linked to North Korean proliferation financing moved via shell companies and intermediaries between the early and 2017. U.S. financial institutions flagged patterns of rapid, high-volume wire transfers inconsistent with typical commercial activity, often involving nominee directors and layered accounts to obscure origins. emerged as a prominent hub for laundering proceeds from Latin American and illicit activities, with SARs documenting flows tied to Venezuelan officials, such as banker Martin Lustgarten's transactions involving alleged bribes exceeding $10 million routed through U.S. accounts in the 2010s. Canadian entities facilitated anonymity through "ghost" companies with minimal local presence, as seen in SARs for a Calgary-registered firm connected to a 2019 fishing trawler incident, ultimately traced to Seychelles-based nominees and Latvian fishing operations with no verifiable Canadian operations. Overall, North American patterns involved correspondent banking vulnerabilities, where U.S. and Canadian institutions served as gateways for global illicit flows, including 183 suspicious transactions totaling approximately $15.6 billion processed by major Canadian banks like CIBC, RBC, and TD from 1999 to 2017. In , revealed recurrent schemes exploiting public sector and resource extraction, with funds frequently layered through U.S. and European banks before settlement in North American . Mexican transactions included over $13 million in suspicious payments linked to soccer Femexfut amid the FIFAgate scandal, involving bribes for bidding rights flagged between 2010 and 2015. In , "boligarch" networks—elite figures tied to the regime—extracted billions via entities like Alex Saab's Global Bank of Commerce, with noting flagged wires since 2016 and multimillion-dollar asset purchases in by associates like Alejandro Ceballos Jiménez. Brazilian patterns centered on Odebrecht's bribery operations, exemplified by a $500,000 payment in Colombia for a Fernando Botero artwork in 2013, part of wider Lava Jato-related laundering through offshore vehicles. Argentine cases involved public housing contract kickbacks, such as Sarleaf Limited's multimillion-dollar flows for inflated deals, and athlete-linked evasion like Javier Mascherano's Alenda Investments Ltd. handling over $1 million in suspicious transfers. Across the region, gold smuggling from Peru and Colombia featured prominently, with firms like Kaloti Metals & Logistics and CIJ Gutierrez processing illicitly sourced metals into suspicious international wires valued in tens of millions during the 2010s. These flows often converged northward, underscoring correspondent banking as a vector for integrating dirty money into legitimate economies, though SAR filings emphasized detection rather than proven criminality.

Criticisms of the Reporting and Leak

Misrepresentation of SARs as Evidence of Crime

Suspicious Activity Reports () are confidential filings submitted by to FinCEN when they identify transactions that may warrant for potential activity, such as or terrorist financing, but these reports document suspicions rather than confirmed criminal acts. Institutions file to comply with regulatory requirements under the , often erring on the side of caution to mitigate liability, even when subsequent review reveals no wrongdoing. The FinCEN Files leak, comprising approximately 2,100 from 1999 to 2017 shared by and the (ICIJ) in September 2020, represented less than 0.02% of the millions of submitted to FinCEN during that period, limiting its scope as a comprehensive indicator of systemic issues. Media portrayals frequently equated the presence of flagged transactions in these —totaling over $2 trillion—with direct evidence of widespread criminality by banks and their clients, overlooking the preliminary nature of the reports and the fact that many suspicions do not result in prosecutions. FinCEN emphasized that SARs provide leads for but do not constitute proof of violations, and their public disclosure undermines the confidential investigative process designed to detect and disrupt financial crimes without alerting perpetrators. Industry analysts, including those from , noted that such reporting incentivizes over-filing to avoid penalties, potentially inflating volumes without correlating to actual illicit flows, and criticized coverage for ignoring this defensive compliance dynamic. This misrepresentation risks eroding public trust in the by implying guilt from unverified alerts, whereas empirical outcomes show contribute to thousands of convictions and asset seizures annually, though only a fraction of filings lead to actions. Experts argue the leak's selective sample amplified isolated red flags into narratives of institutional failure, diverting attention from broader anti-money laundering (AML) system deficiencies, such as inadequate international coordination, rather than holding banks solely accountable for unproven suspicions. FinCEN's response highlighted the unlawful nature of the disclosures under 31 U.S.C. § 5322, which prohibits dissemination to preserve their utility in ongoing probes.

Undermining of Confidential Enforcement Mechanisms

The confidentiality of is mandated by U.S. regulations under the , which prohibits and FinCEN from disclosing SAR contents to prevent alerting subjects of investigations and to encourage robust reporting without fear of retaliation. The FinCEN Files leak, which exposed over 2,100 SARs filed primarily between 2011 and 2017, directly violated these protections by publicizing sensitive details on transactions totaling more than $2 trillion, including entity names, transaction patterns, and flagged risks. FinCEN emphasized on September 1, 2020, that unauthorized SAR disclosures constitute a capable of compromising investigations, impacting U.S. , and endangering institutions and individuals cooperating with authorities. This breach risks tipping off potential perpetrators, allowing them to alter behaviors or evade detection before enforcement actions materialize, as are designed to enable proactive gathering without immediate confrontation. Analysts have warned of a "" on anti-money laundering efforts, where financial institutions might reduce detailed SAR filings to minimize exposure risks or adopt defensive de-risking strategies, such as severing ties with high-risk clients preemptively rather than investigating through confidential channels. Such dynamics could erode the voluntary cooperation underpinning the SAR regime, which relies on banks' trust that reports remain shielded to facilitate ongoing and future probes without reprisal. The leak further undermines enforcement by eroding inter-agency and trust in the system's ; for instance, foreign counterparts may hesitate to share if U.S.-held proves vulnerable to public dissemination, potentially fragmenting global efforts against cross-border . While no immediate spike in disrupted investigations was publicly quantified, FinCEN's referral of the matter for underscores the perceived threat to the confidential mechanisms that have processed millions of since the program's inception, with breaches historically linked to reduced reporting efficacy.

Potential Biases and Sensationalism in Coverage

Coverage of the FinCEN Files by and the (ICIJ), along with partner outlets, frequently portrayed the over 2,100 leaked () as of widespread totaling $2 trillion, implying banks knowingly facilitated criminal activity despite filing these reports. In reality, represent preliminary suspicions filed by banks to comply with regulatory requirements, lacking any adjudication of wrongdoing and often serving as a defensive measure against potential ; many flagged transactions are later deemed legitimate upon investigation, and the leaked documents constitute a minuscule —less than 0.02%—of the millions of submitted to FinCEN annually. This framing overlooked the purpose of SAR confidentiality, which enables detailed intelligence-sharing with , and instead amplified narratives of systemic bank complicity without contextualizing banks' substantial investments in anti-money laundering (AML) , exceeding billions in fines, , and personnel since the reports' underlying periods (primarily 2010–2017). Sensationalism manifested in headlines and analyses that equated SAR filings with confirmed "tainted" or "dirty" money flows, such as claims of banks aiding terrorists or corrupt regimes, despite experts dismissing these as "silly" misinterpretations that ignore ' role in proactive monitoring rather than proof of guilt. Reports often highlighted outdated data without noting post-2017 enhancements in bank or the termination of high-risk client relationships, fostering public outrage and stock volatility while bypassing for verification. professionals criticized this approach for eroding trust in the SAR regime, potentially leading to less informative future filings to avoid public backlash, and for prioritizing journalistic "" over the risks of disseminating stolen, sensitive documents—a federal crime under U.S. law. Potential biases in the coverage stem from a tendency among ICIJ partners—many mainstream outlets with histories of adversarial stances toward —to attribute failures primarily to private-sector rather than regulatory shortcomings, such as the U.S. system's outdated framework ill-equipped for modern transaction speeds and volumes. Analyses scapegoated jurisdictions and smaller nations while underemphasizing higher SAR exposures in major economies like the U.S. and , reflecting selective focus that aligns with narratives critiquing and over governmental enforcement lapses. This pattern, evident in ICIJ's prior investigations like the , raises questions about source credibility, as the consortium's donor-funded model may incentivize high-impact exposés that amplify unverified suspicions for broader advocacy on reforms, potentially at the expense of balanced assessment of empirical outcomes from -driven probes. Experts contend such distracts from needed systemic overhauls, like updating AML protocols built 25 years ago, by vilifying efforts that have demonstrably disrupted illicit networks.

Institutional and Regulatory Responses

Statements and Defenses from Banks

Banks such as , , , and issued statements emphasizing that represent proactive alerts to regulators rather than confirmed evidence of criminal activity or bank complicity. These institutions argued that are filed out of an abundance of caution to fulfill legal obligations under the , even for transactions that may ultimately prove legitimate after internal review, as continuing to process funds without flagging suspicions could itself violate compliance rules. Deutsche Bank, which filed the highest number of in the leaked files (over 980 covering $1.3 trillion in transactions from to ), stated that combating has been a priority, with the bank investing nearly $1 billion in enhanced controls and expanding its anti- team to more than 1,500 personnel. The bank noted that the reported issues were historic, already investigated by regulators who acknowledged its cooperation and remediation efforts, and clarified that are "alerts, not proven facts," submitted to support government investigations without implying wrongdoing by the bank or clients. HSBC defended its practices by highlighting over $1 billion spent on compliance since 2015, including growing its staff to around 5,000 by 2017, while declining to comment specifically on SAR details due to confidentiality rules. Similarly, cited legal restrictions on discussing but pointed to exiting several hundred foreign correspondent banking relationships and allocating significant resources to anti-money laundering (AML) programs as evidence of strengthened oversight. underscored monitoring 1.2 billion transactions in 2019 with nearly 2,000 dedicated staff, framing its SAR filings as part of robust rather than systemic failures. Other banks, including and , invoked similar defenses, stressing investments in technology and processes to detect and report suspicions while noting that do not equate to illicit funds being knowingly processed, as banks often continue relationships pending regulatory feedback to avoid alerting potential criminals. These responses collectively portrayed the FinCEN Files as highlighting the volume of global transactions necessitating vigilant reporting, not inherent deficiencies in enforcement, with banks crediting post-2012 regulatory settlements for driving improvements like automated monitoring systems.

Reactions from U.S. Government and FinCEN

FinCEN issued a statement on September 1, 2020, condemning the unauthorized disclosure of over 2,100 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and related sensitive documents, which it described as a federal crime under the Bank Secrecy Act. The agency emphasized that such leaks threaten U.S. national security by compromising ongoing law enforcement investigations into illicit finance, endanger the safety of financial institutions required to file SARs, and undermine the confidentiality essential to the voluntary reporting system that detects suspicious transactions. FinCEN did not dispute the underlying data but stressed that SARs represent unverified suspicions rather than proven wrongdoing, and their public release could deter future filings and alert criminals to investigative techniques. In response, FinCEN promptly referred the matter for to the U.S. of Justice (DOJ) and the Treasury Department's Office of Inspector General on the same date, highlighting the potential harm to anti-money laundering efforts. The DOJ subsequently charged Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a former FinCEN intelligence analyst, with unlawfully disclosing the to a reporter between approximately March 2018 and June 2020, leading to her arrest in October 2020. Edwards pleaded guilty in January 2021 and was sentenced to six months in prison in June 2021, with the court noting that her actions jeopardized and the integrity of financial oversight mechanisms. No broader U.S. government admissions of systemic AML deficiencies were made; instead, officials reiterated the effectiveness of in supporting over 2,000 investigations annually while prioritizing against the breach itself.

International Regulatory Adjustments

In July 2021, the proposed the creation of a dedicated anti-money laundering (AMLA) to supervise high-risk financial entities across the , explicitly addressing systemic failures in cross-border oversight highlighted by the FinCEN Files, including inadequate coordination among national supervisors that allowed suspicious transactions to persist despite SAR filings. This proposal built on prior directives but gained urgency from the leak's revelations of over $2 trillion in flagged transfers involving European banks, aiming to centralize enforcement powers previously fragmented under national regimes. AMLA, established by Regulation () 2024/1624 and operational from 2025, imposes unified risk assessments and direct supervisory interventions, though critics note its scope remains limited to select sectors rather than comprehensive overhaul. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the primary global standard-setter for AML/CFT, issued a statement on September 22, 2020, acknowledging the unauthorized disclosure of FinCEN documents and reiterating the critical role of SAR confidentiality in enabling effective reporting without fear of reprisal, but it did not announce revisions to its 40 Recommendations. Similarly, responses in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom emphasized enhanced transparency in beneficial ownership registries under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which expanded verification requirements for companies, but these measures aligned with pre-leak initiatives such as the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations amendments and were not uniquely triggered by the FinCEN Files. National probes, such as Thailand's Anti-Money Laundering Office initiating investigations into four banks cited in the files on September 22, 2020, reflected heightened enforcement scrutiny but yielded no documented regulatory rule changes by 2025. Overall, international adjustments remained evolutionary, reinforcing existing FATF-aligned frameworks amid ongoing debates over enforcement efficacy, with of reduced illicit flows lacking due to the proprietary nature of post-leak SAR data.

Consequences and Long-Term Effects

Legal Ramifications of the Leak

The unauthorized disclosure of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) constitutes a violation of the (BSA), specifically 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g), which mandates confidentiality to protect ongoing investigations and . Penalties for such breaches include civil fines of up to $100,000 per violation and criminal sanctions comprising fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to five years per offense. The principal legal consequence of the FinCEN Files leak was the federal prosecution of Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a former FinCEN intelligence analyst and senior advisor. Edwards leaked more than 1,000 and related confidential documents to a reporter between April and August 2018, motivated by her dissatisfaction with ignored internal complaints about financial crimes. These materials formed the core dataset for the FinCEN Files reporting after shared them with the (ICIJ). Arrested on October 9, 2020, Edwards pleaded guilty in January 2021 to one count of unauthorized disclosure of confidential government information. On June 3, 2021, she received a sentence of six months in , three years of supervised release, and 100 hours of , aligning with the upper end of federal sentencing guidelines for the offense. No criminal charges or successful civil lawsuits were pursued against media organizations such as or ICIJ for publishing the leaked , despite FinCEN's assertion that the disclosures compromised efforts and endangered institutions and individuals. stakeholders, including officers, publicly urged prosecution of the leaker to deter future breaches, emphasizing the harm to anti-money laundering efficacy, but no broader actions against recipients or publishers materialized. The Edwards case underscored priorities targeting insiders rather than journalistic , with FinCEN maintaining that SAR confidentiality remains sacrosanct to sustain voluntary reporting by .

Influence on AML Policy and Enforcement

The FinCEN Files, comprising over 2,100 leaked suspicious activity reports () covering transactions totaling more than $2 trillion between 1999 and 2017, exposed systemic shortcomings in anti-money laundering (AML) detection and response, where banks flagged high-risk activities but often failed to halt them due to inadequate follow-through mechanisms. This revelation intensified pre-existing debates on AML efficacy, highlighting over-reliance on SAR volume—reaching 3.2 million filings in 2019 alone—without commensurate investigative prioritization, prompting calls for a shift toward intelligence-driven over procedural . In response, U.S. policymakers accelerated implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act), enacted as part of the for Fiscal Year 2021 on December 23, 2020, which mandated FinCEN to modernize reporting requirements, including the establishment of a registry under the Corporate Transparency Act to address anonymity exploited in flagged transactions. Although the AML Act's core provisions were drafted prior to the September 2020 leak, the Files amplified urgency by demonstrating real-world persistence of vulnerabilities, influencing subsequent FinCEN rulemaking such as the August 28, 2024, final rule extending AML program requirements to registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers to cover previously unregulated channels. On , the Files did not immediate surges in prosecutions—FinCEN-led investigations remained constrained by limitations, with only a fraction of advancing to actionable cases—but spurred regulatory emphasis on outcome-based metrics, including enhanced transaction monitoring and risk assessments. Banks faced heightened scrutiny, evidenced by FinCEN's 2021 recognition of SAR impacts in outcomes, yet costs escalated without proportional crime reductions, as the leak revealed inefficiencies like redundant filings rather than criminal complicity. Critics, including banking officers, argued the eroded SAR confidentiality, potentially deterring detailed reporting and thus impairing intelligence, a concern echoed in calls for prosecuting the leaker to preserve integrity. Internationally, the Files contributed to adjustments like the Union's 2021 AML package revisions, prioritizing high-risk SAR triage, though empirical assessments post-leak indicate limited disruption to overall trends, underscoring the need for technological integration in over volume-based policies.

Empirical Assessment of Actual Impact on Financial Crime

Despite the exposure of over $2 trillion in suspicious transactions across more than 2,100 in the FinCEN Files, covering activities from 1999 to 2017, there is no documented evidence of widespread prosecutions or asset recoveries directly stemming from the leaked documents themselves. The files primarily reiterated known issues with high-risk entities and correspondent banking, but follow-up enforcement actions by U.S. authorities, such as FinCEN or the Department of Justice, have not yielded measurable spikes in convictions tied to the disclosures, as represent suspicions rather than verified crimes requiring further for substantiation. Instead, the leak prompted concerns among compliance experts that breaching SAR confidentiality could deter future voluntary reporting by financial institutions, potentially weakening detection mechanisms without enhancing deterrence of illicit flows. Empirical data on SAR effectiveness reveals systemic inefficiencies: U.S. filed approximately 4.6 million in 2023, a surge from prior years, yet only about 4% result in any follow-up, with an even smaller fraction leading to arrests or convictions. This low yield stems from "defensive filing" practices, where banks submit reports to mitigate regulatory liability rather than pinpoint , generating high volumes of low-quality signals amid vast legitimate transactions. Studies of the broader anti-money laundering (AML) regime, including , indicate no clear causal reduction in predicate crimes like or bribery, with compliance costs exceeding $200 billion annually in the U.S. alone but persistent vulnerabilities in trade-based and laundering. Global estimates of laundered funds remain stable at 2-5% of GDP—roughly $2-5 trillion annually as of —with no observable decline attributable to post-2020 enhancements spurred by the FinCEN Files, such as refined rules or international scrutiny. assessments, including those from think tanks, critique the regime's focus on transaction monitoring over disrupting criminal networks, noting that while SARs aid isolated cases, they fail to scale against adaptive illicit finance tactics like or shell companies. The files' revelation of continued flows through major banks post-flagging underscores this gap, as regulators' deferred prosecutions and fines—totaling billions but rarely altering systemic behaviors—have not empirically curbed overall volumes. In causal terms, the persistence of estimated laundering scales suggests that SAR-driven AML measures, even amplified by leak-induced reforms, prioritize process over outcome, yielding marginal deterrence at best.

References

  1. [1]
    FinCEN Files - ICIJ
    Sep 20, 2020 · An ICIJ investigation reveals the role of global banks in industrial-scale money laundering – and the bloodshed and suffering that flow in its wake.Explore the FinCEN Files data · Download data · FinCEN Files investigations · FAQ
  2. [2]
    Leak of thousands of FinCEN SARs reveals large international ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · In all, ICIJ stated the cache of “documents identify more than $2 trillion in transactions between 1999 and 2017 that were flagged by financial ...
  3. [3]
    Suspicious activity reports, explained - ICIJ
    Sep 20, 2020 · The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) received more than 12 million SARs between 2011 and 2017 – and more than two million in 2019 ...
  4. [4]
    What the FinCEN leaks reveal about the ongoing war on dirty money
    Sep 25, 2020 · The leaks provide a small snapshot of the US government's attempts to keep tabs on financial crime.
  5. [5]
    Statement by FinCEN Regarding Unlawfully Disclosed Suspicious ...
    Sep 1, 2020 · The unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime that can impact the national security of the United States, compromise law enforcement investigations.
  6. [6]
    The Meaning of the FinCEN Files - Global Financial Integrity
    Jun 23, 2022 · The documents, dubbed the “FinCEN Files,” depict a financial system that is both flooded with the proceeds of crime and also itself a playground ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Lessons from the FinCEN Files - Georgetown Law
    The FinCEN files revealed trillions in potential money laundering, showing SARs fail to stop it, and the need for updated regulations.
  8. [8]
    Frequently Asked Questions | FinCEN.gov
    The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was established in April 1990 by Treasury Order Number 105-08. Its original mission was to provide a ...Missing: executive | Show results with:executive
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Our overall aim is to build a system to combat organized crime
    Apr 25, 1990 · FinCEN's aim is to combat organized and white-collar crime, prevent tax fraud, and provide a network for detecting financial crimes.Missing: executive | Show results with:executive
  10. [10]
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Since FinCEN was founded in 1990, it has been a key player in broad-based efforts against money laundering and related financial crimes. In 1995, FinCEN merged ...
  11. [11]
    FinCEN's Legal Authorities | FinCEN.gov
    This statute establishes FinCEN as a bureau within the Treasury Department and describes FinCEN's duties and powers.Missing: mandate | Show results with:mandate
  12. [12]
    Treasury Order 180-01; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
    Oct 21, 2002 · It is hereby ordered that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN” or the Bureau”) is re-established as a bureau within the Department.
  13. [13]
    About FinCEN | FinCEN.gov
    FinCEN's mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit activity, counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and promote national ...What We Do · Mission · Frequently Asked Questions · Contract Opportunities
  14. [14]
    What We Do | FinCEN.gov
    FinCEN carries out its mission by receiving and maintaining financial transactions data; analyzing and disseminating that data for law enforcement purposes; ...
  15. [15]
    Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) | FinCEN.gov
    As of April 1, 2013, financial institutions must use the new FinCEN reports, which are available only electronically through the BSA E-Filing System.
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
    The purpose of the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is to report known or suspected violations of law or suspicious activity observed by financial institutions ...
  17. [17]
    Suspicious Activity Reporting - BSA/AML Manual
    To inform and assist banks in reporting instances of suspected money laundering, terrorist financing, and fraud, FinCEN issues advisories and guidance ...
  18. [18]
    1st Review of the Suspicious Activity Reporting System (SARS)
    SARS has processed approximately 150,000 reports of suspicious activity submitted by depository institutions. Those reports are available electronically, in ...
  19. [19]
    12 CFR 21.11 -- Suspicious Activity Report. - eCFR
    This section ensures that national banks file a Suspicious Activity Report when they detect a known or suspected violation of Federal law.
  20. [20]
    Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) - OCC.gov - Treasury
    A financial institution is required to file a suspicious activity report no later than 30 calendar days after the date of initial detection of facts.
  21. [21]
    12 CFR 208.62 -- Suspicious activity reports. - eCFR
    A member bank is required to file a SAR no later than 30 calendar days after the date of initial detection of facts that may constitute a basis for filing a SAR ...
  22. [22]
    Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity ... - NCUA
    Oct 9, 2025 · “As a general rule of thumb, organizations should report continuing suspicious activity with a report being filed at least every 90 days.” ...
  23. [23]
    Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) E-Filing System - NCUA
    Jun 17, 2025 · Credit unions must retain copies of SARs and supporting documentation for five years from the date of filing the SAR. All copies may be retained ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] FinCEN Suspicious Activity Report (FinCEN SAR) Electronic Filing ...
    Additional Reporting: The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to file a Currency. Transaction Report (CTR) in accordance with the Department of ...
  25. [25]
    Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Program - OCC.gov - Treasury
    A financial institution is required to file a suspicious activity report no later than 30 calendar days after the date of initial detection of facts that may ...
  26. [26]
    Connecting the Dots…The Importance of Timely and Effective ... - FDIC
    SAR Filings Exceed 1 Million in 2006 ... Since the late 1980s, depository institutions have been required to report known or suspected criminal violations to ...
  27. [27]
    The Bank Secrecy Act | FinCEN.gov
    The BSA authorizes the Department of the Treasury to impose reporting and other requirements on financial institutions and other businesses to help detect and ...
  28. [28]
    SAR Filings by Month | FinCEN.gov
    SAR Filings By Month. SAR Filings by Month. Figure 1. April 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. Total : 109,887. Filing Report for Month of April 96 : 2170
  29. [29]
    FinCEN Issues Notice on SARs Filing Figures
    Jun 8, 2020 · In 2019, 12,148 financial institutions submitted 2,751,694 SARs. Over 85% were filed by banks (54.4%) and money services businesses (MSBs) (32.9 ...
  30. [30]
    FinCEN Releases Year-in-Review for FY 2023: SARs, CTRs and ...
    Jun 10, 2024 · In FY 2023, 4.6 million SARs and 20.8 million CTRs were filed. 13.9% of investigations opened originated from BSA data. 15.42% of FBI ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] SAR Activity Review - By the Numbers - FinCEN
    Since January 2001, casinos and card clubs have filed 74,595 SARs – the last three years of which accounted for half of these reports. This year saw an increase ...
  32. [32]
    SAR Filings by Industry | FinCEN.gov
    For the period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2024. Download filing trend data compiled from Suspicious Activity Reports (Form 111). The data is arranged ...
  33. [33]
    Former Treasury official sentenced to six months in prison ... - Politico
    Jun 3, 2021 · Prosecutors said Edwards sent Leopold a total of more than 50,000 documents via an encrypted application, identified in a defense filing as ...
  34. [34]
    FinCEN Files source sentenced to six months in prison - ICIJ
    Jun 3, 2021 · Last year, Edwards pleaded guilty to leaking records to a reporter, which other court documents identify as Jason Leopold of BuzzFeed News. The ...
  35. [35]
    Ex-Treasury worker sentenced to prison for leaking banking reports ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards pleaded guilty last year to a conspiracy charge, admitting she leaked banking reports. Edwards lawyer ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  36. [36]
    FinCEN official accused of leaking secret bank records requests ...
    Oct 26, 2020 · Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards says she leaked “suspicious activity reports” after official complaints were ignored.
  37. [37]
    Treasury employee charged with leaks to BuzzFeed about Trump ...
    Oct 17, 2018 · Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, who is a senior adviser at Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN, was arrested in ...
  38. [38]
    Natalie Edwards Sentenced For Giving Fincen Documents To ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · A former Treasury Department official was sentenced to six months in prison on Thursday after she admitted to providing highly confidential banking documents ...Missing: leak | Show results with:leak
  39. [39]
    Former Senior FinCEN Employee Sentenced To Six Months In ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards Repeatedly Transmitted SARs and Other Sensitive Government Information to A Reporter.
  40. [40]
    Former Senior Fincen Employee Pleads Guilty To Conspiring To ...
    Jan 13, 2020 · Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards Illegally Repeatedly Transmitted SARs and Other Sensitive Government Information To A Reporter Resulting In ...Missing: leak | Show results with:leak<|control11|><|separator|>
  41. [41]
    FinCEN Files Whistleblower Now In Prison - BuzzFeed News
    Sep 3, 2021 · Labeling her “the forgotten whistleblower,” the Washington Post described her in July as “one of the most important whistleblowers of our era, ...
  42. [42]
    What is the FinCEN Files investigation? - ICIJ
    Sep 20, 2020 · The FinCEN Files investigation involves thousands of other confidential documents obtained and shared with ICIJ by reporters at BuzzFeed News, L ...Missing: acquisition | Show results with:acquisition
  43. [43]
    FinCEN Files Source Natalie Mayflower Edwards Sours Is Free
    Jan 25, 2022 · The Whistleblower Behind The FinCEN Files Investigation Has Been ... whistleblowers of our era, and yet hardly anyone remembers her name.
  44. [44]
    About the FinCEN Files investigation - ICIJ
    Sep 19, 2020 · FinCEN condemned the leak of the documents, declining to comment on the content of the suspicious activity reports, and saying it had ...
  45. [45]
    FinCEN Files Explainer: How BuzzFeed News And ICIJ Did It
    along with suspected ...
  46. [46]
    'FinCEN Files' leaker harmed US anti-laundering regime and should ...
    Oct 16, 2020 · On September 1, FinCEN said it has referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Treasury's Office of Inspector General.
  47. [47]
    Opening the FinCEN Files: How ICIJ did it | DataJournalism.com
    Nov 8, 2020 · At first, ICIJ partner SVT used machine learning to screen the records and obtain a first set of transactional data. The variations in ...
  48. [48]
    https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/confidential-clients/
  49. [49]
    BuzzFeed News And The International Consortium Of Investigative ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · The FinCEN Files Is Based On A Trove Of Documents BuzzFeed News Shared With ICIJ And More Than 100 Newsrooms.Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  50. [50]
    FinCEN Files media partners - ICIJ
    Sep 20, 2020 · FinCEN Files media partners · Abdelhak El Idrissi · Abdoulaye Keita · Abigail Washer · Adam Klasfeld · Agoeng Widjaja · Aguirre Talento · Agustin ...
  51. [51]
    About the FinCEN Files investigation - Miami Herald
    Sep 21, 2020 · The massive investigation known as The FinCen Files began as a leak of documents to a single news organization, BuzzFeed News.Read More · The Fincen Files · Expand AllMissing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  52. [52]
    The technology behind the FinCEN files investigation - Linkurious
    Sep 21, 2020 · The data in the FinCEN files represents more than $2 trillion in transactions between 1999 and 2017 (including $514 billion at JPMorgan and $1. ...Missing: aggregate patterns
  53. [53]
    From a jumble of secret reports, damning data on big banks and ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · Most of the SARs in the FinCEN Files – 98% – were filed from 2011-2017. The FinCEN Files also contain transaction spreadsheets and FinCEN ...
  54. [54]
    How signatures in public data helped expose the UK's dirty money ...
    Feb 10, 2021 · Combining public data with leaked FinCEN reports, ICIJ's data team plotted a matrix of shadowy straw men who filed false accounts worth more than $4.5 billion.Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  55. [55]
    Inside scandal-rocked Danske Estonia and the shell-company ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · The FinCEN Files reveal how a handful of secretive agencies mass-produce UK shell companies owned by criminals and launderers from former Soviet states.Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  56. [56]
    The FinCEN Files - OCCRP
    Sep 20, 2020 · At the heart of the FinCen Files are more than 2,100 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) written by banks and other financial players and ...
  57. [57]
    Secret documents show how North Korea launders money through ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · The Treasury Department said in a recent report that money launderers often use correspondent banking services to move illicit money across ...
  58. [58]
    FinCEN files reveal suspicious transactions were waved through ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · Top 10 banks by reported amount in FinCEN Files ; Deutsche Bank, $1,310,771,379,656 ; JPMorgan, $514,206,745,666 ; Standard Chartered ...
  59. [59]
    Russian oligarchs of the FinCEN Files – DW – 09/26/2020
    Sep 26, 2020 · The secret activities of Russian oligarchs, rich businesspeople with connections to the Kremlin, play a role in the so-called Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR)
  60. [60]
    FinCEN Files: Sanctioned Putin associate 'laundered millions ... - BBC
    Sep 20, 2020 · The US Treasury said the brothers "provided support to Putin's pet projects" and "made billions of dollars in contracts for Gazprom and the ...Missing: Rosneft | Show results with:Rosneft
  61. [61]
    Global banks defy U.S. crackdowns by serving oligarchs, criminals ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · FinCEN Files - Charts. Gold companies in FinCEN Files (2007-2016); Top ... correspondent banking arrangements, in which a bank with ...
  62. [62]
    FinCEN Files reporting from across Africa - ICIJ
    Oct 7, 2020 · The FinCEN Files exposés from Africa involved reporting on some of the continent's most powerful people and corporations. Journalists ...
  63. [63]
    Leaked FinCEN files show how banks, including SA institutions ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · The FinCEN files reportedly show that 173 transactions that flowed to or from banks in SA were flagged as potentially suspicious.
  64. [64]
    FinCEN Files reporting from North Africa and the Middle East - ICIJ
    Nov 9, 2020 · ICIJ partners investigated suspicious transactions linked to oil and gas companies, a doping and bribery scheme, Iran sanctions evasions and more.Missing: patterns | Show results with:patterns
  65. [65]
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54176127
  66. [66]
    FinCEN Files investigations from across Asia - ICIJ
    Sep 24, 2020 · From suspicious transactions linked to Olympic bids, fugitive financiers and terrorist organizations, see key stories by ICIJ's media ...
  67. [67]
    https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/fincen-files-on-us-radar-dawood-ibrahims-financier-money-laundering-lashkar-e-taiba-jaish-funding-6603904/
  68. [68]
    The FinCEN files: Dirty little secrets of the world's banks revealed in ...
    Sep 20, 2020 · These documents reveal the world's biggest banks have defied money-laundering crackdowns by moving staggering sums of illicit cash for criminal networks and ...
  69. [69]
    Macquarie and CBA named in global money laundering investigation
    Sep 22, 2020 · Macquarie Group and Commonwealth Bank are the largest Australian financial institutions to be implicated in a global money laundering scandal, ...Missing: Oceania patterns
  70. [70]
    FinCEN Files: Deutsche Bank tops list of suspicious activity - DW
    Sep 20, 2020 · The leaked FinCEN files suggest the bank was aware it was facilitating suspicious transactions amounting to over $1 trillion dollars.
  71. [71]
    A roundup of FinCEN Files reporting from Europe - ICIJ
    Oct 6, 2020 · The FinCEN Files detailed how several customers of these Danske Bank branches played a major role in moving money in the Russian mirror trading ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  72. [72]
    In the wake of the FinCEN Files, the EU must take urgent steps to ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · Banks in 25 EU member states were also named as destination, transit, or origin account for suspicious money. It should be also noted that the ...
  73. [73]
    A roundup of FinCEN Files reporting from North America - ICIJ
    Sep 29, 2020 · ICIJ partners investigated 'ghost' companies in Canada, Russian mirror trades, North Korean money moving through major US banks, Miami's role in global money ...Missing: patterns | Show results with:patterns
  74. [74]
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article245744245.html
  75. [75]
    Top-secret records show New Brunswick, Alberta companies ... - CBC
    Sep 26, 2020 · Records from the FinCEN files indicate that Oceanic Fisheries N.B. is tied to a Latvian company called Baltreids, which does commercial fishing ...
  76. [76]
    FinCEN Files reveal Canadian connection to global financial crime ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · Major Canadian banks including CIBC, RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal, UBS and HSBC Canada, also were involved in 183 suspicious transactions --$15.6 ...Missing: ghost | Show results with:ghost
  77. [77]
    A roundup of FinCEN Files reporting from Latin America - ICIJ
    Sep 25, 2020 · ICIJ's partners in the region investigated suspicious transactions linked to corruption in soccer, schemes involving food and housing programs for the poor.Missing: North | Show results with:North
  78. [78]
    https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/how-banks-helped-venezuelas-boligarchs-extract-billions/
  79. [79]
    Blame the system for FinCen files, not the banks, experts urge - CNBC
    Sep 22, 2020 · The files, obtained by Buzzfeed and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, contain Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) ...
  80. [80]
    Not as bad as they look: What the FinCEN Files really reveal
    Oct 5, 2020 · Second, the FinCEN files represent less than 0.02% of all the SARs filed in the period they cover. Which means, they are an infinitesimally ...
  81. [81]
    FinCen Issues Statement Regarding Publication of Suspicious ...
    Sep 3, 2020 · The Financial Crimes Network (FinCEN) issued a statement regarding various media outlets' intent to publish Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and other ...
  82. [82]
    'FinCEN Files' Highlight Ongoing Risks of SAR Filing Practices
    Sep 21, 2020 · ... SARs that together cover more than 18,000 transactions totaling $35 billion. Many of the records were compiled in response to U.S. ...
  83. [83]
    FinCEN Advisory – FIN-2010-A014
    Nov 23, 2010 · The unauthorized disclosure of SARs could undermine ongoing and future investigations by tipping off suspects, deter financial institutions from ...
  84. [84]
    U.S. FinCEN leaks to have 'chilling effect' on fight against financial ...
    Sep 18, 2020 · Leaks from the US financial intelligence unit will have a devastating effect on the trust and confidentiality that underpins the anti-money laundering (AML) ...
  85. [85]
    The FinCEN Files: Unethical, Unreliable and Undermining.
    Sep 21, 2020 · The release of stolen FinCEN data is arguably their most controversial, ill-advised and unethical move to date.
  86. [86]
    UPDATE 2-'FinCEN' documents reportedly show banks moved illicit ...
    Sep 21, 2020 · The SARs, which the reports said numbered more than 2,100, were obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of ...Missing: acquisition | Show results with:acquisition
  87. [87]
    Bank Reponses To FinCEN Files Investigation - BuzzFeed News
    Sep 20, 2020 · Here are statements prepared by many of the world's biggest financial institutions in response to questions about reporting in the FinCEN Files ...
  88. [88]
    Statement on FinCen Files reporting - Deutsche Bank
    Sep 20, 2020 · Deutsche Bank has published the following statement: “The fight against financial crime, money laundering and capital flight has been a priority ...
  89. [89]
    Here's what banking experts are saying in the wake of the FinCen leak
    Sep 21, 2020 · The files, obtained by Buzzfeed and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, contain Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
  90. [90]
    EU to propose watchdog to tackle anti-money laundering failures ...
    Jul 16, 2021 · EU to propose watchdog to tackle anti-money laundering failures exposed by FinCEN Files. A leaked European Commission draft indicates urgency ...
  91. [91]
    FATF statement following unauthorised disclosure of confidential ...
    The FATF is aware of press reports about the disclosure of suspicious activity reports (SARs) documents filed by financial institutions.
  92. [92]
    https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1990027/amlo-vows-probe-into-icijs-claims/
  93. [93]
    FinCEN leaks mark inflection point for international AML regime ...
    Nov 6, 2020 · The FinCEN Files leak have also underscored the need to improve the alignment of public and private sector efforts to combat financial crime.Missing: adjustments | Show results with:adjustments
  94. [94]
    US Government Continues to Penalize Unauthorized Disclosures of ...
    Feb 24, 2020 · The unauthorized disclosure of a SAR carries civil and criminal penalties, which include up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. ... [7] ...
  95. [95]
    Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 Implementation and Beyond
    Sep 27, 2022 · These provisions aim to significantly update and expand aspects of the existing policy framework for anti-money laundering and combating the ...FinCEN: An Overview · BSA "Modernization" and... · AMLA: Key Provisions<|separator|>
  96. [96]
    [PDF] Fact Sheet: FinCEN Issues Final Rule to Combat Illicit Finance and ...
    Aug 28, 2024 · This final rule adds certain registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers. (ERAs) to the definition of “financial ...
  97. [97]
    Anti-Money Laundering: Better Information Needed on Effectiveness ...
    The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 aims to modernize how federal agencies combat money laundering and other financial crimes.Missing: changes regulations
  98. [98]
    The Value of FinCEN Data - Law Enforcement Overview
    FinCEN Recognizes the Significant Impact of Bank Secrecy Act Data on Law Enforcement Efforts (2021)Missing: global | Show results with:global
  99. [99]
    What the FinCEN leak means for regulatory changes in banks
    In this article, we explore the content of the FinCEN leaks and the consequences for financial institutions.
  100. [100]
    The Truth About Suspicious Activity Reports - Bank Policy Institute
    Sep 22, 2020 · The report titled “FinCEN Files” is based on limited information and lacks a full understanding of the AML framework, so it provides a skewed ...
  101. [101]
    Do stronger Anti Money Laundering (AML) measures reduce crime ...
    This paper assesses the effectiveness of AML programs in curbing three distinct forms of criminal activity: corruption, bribery, and environmental crime.
  102. [102]
    [PDF] Anti-Money Laundering: Opportunities for Improvement
    The current anti-money laundering regime is complicated, expensive and seems far from effective. This paper examines the path-dependent processes through ...
  103. [103]
    The global impact of money laundering in 2024
    Jul 8, 2024 · Annual laundering volumes range from 2% to 5% of global GDP. For 2024, this translates to between $2.22 trillion and $5.54 trillion.<|separator|>
  104. [104]
    Topics Money-laundering Overview - Unodc
    Money laundering is a process which typically follows three stages to finally release laundered funds into the legal financial system.
  105. [105]
    The Global Anti-Financial Crime System is Broken - RUSI
    Sep 12, 2025 · A Thousand SARs a Day Keeps Effectiveness Away. The requirement for regulated entities to report suspicious activity to a central authority ...
  106. [106]
    How Well Does the Money Laundering Control System Work?
    Overall, scholars have pointed out many shortcoming of the global regime including its limited effectiveness in preventing serious profit-oriented crimes, its ...<|separator|>