The U.S. Department of the Treasury is moving to overhaul how banks and other financial institutions track and report suspicious activity, signaling a shift away from a “check-the-box” mentality toward a more targeted, risk-based approach. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a proposed rule to fundamentally reform financial institution programs designed to fight illicit finance, aiming to reduce the administrative burden on banks while increasing the actual effectiveness of anti-money laundering (AML) efforts.
The proposal marks a significant pivot in the federal government’s strategy to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. For years, the industry has argued that the sheer volume of regulatory paperwork—often referred to as “defensive filing”—has obscured real criminal activity. By modernizing the supervisory framework under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Treasury intends to prioritize high-risk threats over low-risk clerical accuracy.
Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent framed the move as a restoration of “common sense,” arguing that the current system often rewards the quantity of documentation over the quality of the intelligence. “For too long, Washington has asked financial institutions to measure success by the volume of paperwork rather than their ability to stop illicit finance threats,” Bessent said. “Our proposal restores common sense with a focus on keeping disappointing actors out of the financial system, not burying America’s banks in more red tape.”
Shifting from Paperwork to Performance
At the heart of the reform is a distinction between how a program is designed and how This proves implemented. Historically, banks have faced severe penalties for technical deficiencies in their AML/CFT (anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism) programs, even if those programs were successfully identifying criminals. The new rule seeks to refocus compliance obligations on effectiveness, allowing regulators to differentiate between a failure in the overarching design of a program and a localized failure in its execution.
This shift is intended to empower financial institutions to allocate their resources more dynamically. Rather than applying a uniform level of scrutiny to every single account or transaction—which can lead to “noise” and wasted manpower—banks would be encouraged to devote more attention and resources toward higher-risk entities and leave lower-risk activities with streamlined oversight.
The proposal also addresses a long-standing tension between banks and their auditors. FinCEN intends to clarify expectations for independent testing and audit functions. The goal is to prevent examiners and auditors from substituting their own subjective preferences for a bank’s own “reasonably designed” risk-based program. If a bank can prove its method is effective at catching bad actors, regulators should not penalize them simply because their process differs from the auditor’s personal preference.
Key Changes to Supervisory Oversight
The proposed rule does not just change how banks operate; it changes how the government monitors them. FinCEN is asserting a more central role in the supervision of AML/CFT programs. This includes the introduction of a new “notice and consultation framework” between federal banking supervisors and FinCEN. This mechanism ensures that when significant supervisory actions are taken, FinCEN is involved, creating a more consistent national standard for how banks are evaluated.
| Area of Reform | Previous Approach | Proposed Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Success Metric | Volume of paperwork/filings | Effectiveness in stopping threats |
| Resource Allocation | Broad, uniform compliance | Targeted, risk-based allocation |
| Audit Standards | Subjective auditor judgment | Reasonably designed programs |
| Supervision | Fragmented agency oversight | Centralized FinCEN consultation |
Aligning with the 2020 AML Act
These changes are not happening in a vacuum. The proposed rule is designed to bring FinCEN’s regulations into alignment with the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, a sweeping piece of legislation that sought to modernize the U.S. Financial system’s defenses against sophisticated global crime syndicates and state-sponsored money laundering.
Notably, this new proposal completely supersedes and replaces a prior proposed rule published on July 3, 2024. By withdrawing the previous version, Treasury is signaling a clean break from the previous regulatory trajectory in favor of this more streamlined, effectiveness-driven model.
For the thousands of financial institutions affected—ranging from global investment banks to small community credit unions—the impact will be felt most in the “exam” process. If the rule is finalized as proposed, the conversation between a bank and its regulator will shift from “Did you fill out this form correctly?” to “Did your program actually identify the high-risk actors in your portfolio?”
Timeline and Next Steps
The proposal is currently in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage. FinCEN is inviting the public and industry stakeholders to provide feedback on the framework. The proposal will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.
Once published, there is a strict window for public commentary. Comments must be received within 60 days of the publication date. This period allows trade groups, compliance officers, and legal experts to highlight potential loopholes or operational hurdles before the rule becomes law.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice.
The next confirmed checkpoint in this process is the publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, which will trigger the 60-day public comment clock.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on these regulatory changes in the comments below and share this story with colleagues in the fintech and compliance sectors.
