PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Proposed 2025 AML Changes: New Import/Export Declarations, Information Sharing, Beneficial Ownership Transparency and New Reporting Entities

Background

On November 30, 2025 draft amendments to the regulations under the Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) were published in the Canada Gazette.

In the interest of time, we have published this blog summarizing what we feel to be the most noteworthy amendments but will follow up with a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, at a later date.

The noted changes are meant to improve Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-Terrorist Financing (ATF) regime and implement measures announced in Budget 2022, Budget 2023, Budget 2024, the 2023 Fall Economic Statement and Canada’s last Parliamentary Review. This is addressed through six separate measures including the introduction of new regulated entities.

Measure 1: Trade Based Money Laundering (TBML)

The draft amendments include a new Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Reporting of Goods Regulation.

Currently, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) can require receipts and invoices for the purposes of determining compliance with import laws, but they cannot request these documents for the purposes of detecting money laundering or terrorist financing.

 Under the proposed regulations, anyone who is importing or exporting goods into or out of Canada needs to file a declaration with the CBSA as follows:

  • whether the goods are proceeds of crime as defined by subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or are goods related to money laundering, to the financing of terrorist activities or to sanctions evasion; and
  • that the goods are actually being imported or exported, as the case may be.

The latter is meant to address “phantom shipments” that are used in trade-based money laundering (TBML) which was identified as a primary money laundering concern in Canada’s last Financial Action Task Force (FATF) evaluation.

The new regulations also bring about substantial record keeping requirements which include information such as the origin, marking, purchase, importation, costs and value of the goods, and records relating to payment for the goods. It’s noteworthy that FINTRAC’s 2023-24 Annual Report lists customs and excise related offences as being in the top five predicate offences related to case disclosures during the period.

Measure 2: Information Sharing

Information sharing between private entities has been recognized by the FATF as an important tool for disrupting money laundering and terrorist financing. Budget 2024 introduced legislative amendments to the Criminal Code and the PCMLTFA to enhance the ability of reporting entities to share information with each other as it relates to the detection of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The draft amendments introduce measures to allow for reporting entities to share information with each other to detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, while maintaining privacy protections for personal information.

Reporting entities that wish to share information (it’s voluntary) would be required to establish and implement a code of practice for disclosing, collecting and using personal information without consent. The code must:

  • describe the purposes for which an individual’s personal information may be disclosed, collected or used without their knowledge or consent;
  • describe the manner in which an individual’s personal information may be disclosed, collected or used without their knowledge or consent;
  • describe the measures to be taken to ensure the protection of personal information, including measures concerning the retention of such information and the keeping of records;
  • include information demonstrating that the code complies with the requirements of the Act.

The Code must be provided to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) for approval and to FINTRAC for comment in advance of use. The OPC would have a prescribed period of 90 days to approve a Code. The proposed amendments also include procedures for reporting entities to modify the Code, which would need the OPC’s approval if the changes are material. Reporting entities would be required to resubmit their Codes every five years regardless of changes or not.

Measure 3: Discrepancy Reporting

The draft amendments will require reporting entities who are dealing with a Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) corporation to report any material discrepancy it finds as part of obtaining and verify the accuracy of beneficial ownership information under current AML requirements. The reporting requirement will not apply if the material discrepancy is resolved within 15 days after the day on which it is identified. Currently, what is deemed to be material is not well defined (outside of missing beneficial owners).

The Information with respect to the discrepancy includes:

  • Name of reported company and identifying number on its certificate of incorporation, amalgamation or continuance,
  • Date on which discrepancy was identified, and
  • Description of discrepancy.

In case you missed it, the federal government launched a public, searchable beneficial ownership registry of federal corporations in early 2024.

Measure 4, 5 and 6: New Reporting Entities

The draft amendments outline the inclusion of three new regulated entities which were announced in Budget 2024 and where noted as concerns during Canada’s last FATF mutual evaluation: factoring companies (referred to as “factors”), cheque cashing companies, and financing and leasing companies.

Similar to that of other regulated entities, a compliance regime will have to be in place which includes the following:

  • Appointment of a Compliance Officer;
  • Development of a documented compliance program (policies, procedures, risk assessment, ongoing training);
  • Conducting compliance effectiveness reviews;
  • Reporting certain transactions;
  • Identifying customers;
  • Keeping records;
  • Risk ranking customers and business relationships;
  • Conducting transaction monitoring and watchlist screening;
  • Conducting enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships; and
  • Follow Ministerial Directives, sanctions, and other relevant transaction restrictions.

4. Factoring Companies

Factoring companies supply liquidity to a customer in exchange for the cash value of a certain amount of the customer’s accounts receivable (i.e. invoices) to be collected later by the factoring company. A factor is defined as a person or entity that is engaged in the business of factoring, with or without recourse against the assignor.

The draft amendments require factoring companies to keep certain records which include:

  • an information record in respect of the person or entity with whom it enters into the agreement;
  • if the information record is in respect of an entity, a record of the name, address and date of birth of every person who enters into the agreement on behalf of the entity and the nature of the person’s principal business or their occupation;
  • if the information record is in respect of a corporation, a copy of the part of official corporate records that contains any provision relating to the power to bind the corporation in respect of transactions with the factor;
  • a record of the financial capacity of the person or entity with which it enters into the agreement and the terms of the agreement;
  • for any payment it makes, a record of:
    • the date of the payment,
    • if the payment is in funds, the type and amount of each type of funds involved,
    • if the payment is not in funds, the type of payment and its value,
    • the method by which the payment is made,
    • the name of every person or entity involved in the payment, and
    • every account number or other equivalent reference number connected to the payment; and
  • a receipt of funds record in respect of every amount of $3,000 or more that it receives, unless the amount is received from a financial entity or public body or from a person who is acting on behalf of a client that is a financial entity or public body.

5. Cheque Cashing

Cheque cashing is a financial service that offers clients the ability to cash a cheque immediately and hold free, for a fee.

Cheque cashing where cheques are not payable to a named person or entity is not currently captured under the PCMLTFA, but draft amendments would introduce such as regulated activity.

In addition to current money services business (MSB) requirements, the draft amendments require keeping certain records in respect to where an MSB cashes a cheque for more than CAD 3,000, including:

  • the date when each cheque is cashed,
  • the person’s or entity’s name and address, the nature of their principal business or their occupation and, in the case of a person, their date of birth,
  • the total amount of the cheque or cheques,
  • the name of the issuer of each cheque,
  • the number of every account that is affected by the cashing of the cheque or cheques, the type of account and the name of each account holder,
  • every reference number that is connected to the cashing of the cheque or cheques and that has a function equivalent to that of an account number, and
  • if the cashing of the cheque or cheques involves virtual currency, every transaction identifier, including the sending and receiving addresses.

 6. Finance and Leasing Entities

The draft amendments define a financing or leasing entity as a person or entity that is engaged in the business of financing or leasing of:

  • property, other than real property or immovables, for business purposes;
  • passenger vehicles in Canada; or
  • property, other than real property or immovables, that is valued at $100,000 or more. (entité de financement ou de bail)

The draft amendments require financing or leasing entities to keep certain records in respect of every financing or leasing arrangement which include:

  • an information record in respect of the person or entity with which it enters into the arrangement;
  • if the information record is in respect of an entity, a record of the name, address and date of birth of every person who enters into the arrangement on behalf of the entity and the nature of the person’s principal business or their occupation;
  • if the information record is in respect of a corporation, a copy of the part of official corporate records that contains any provision relating to the power to bind the corporation in respect of transactions with the financial leasing entity;
  • a record of the financial capacity of the person or entity with which it enters into the arrangement and the terms of the arrangement; and
  • in respect of every payment that it receives under the arrangement, other than a payment received from a financial entity or public body or from a person who is acting on behalf of a client that is a financial entity or public body, a record of
    • the date of the payment,
    • the name of the person or entity that makes the payment,
    • the amount of the payment and of any part of it that is made in cash, and
    • the method by which the payment is made.

What Next?

The proposed changes related to measures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would come into force on October 1, 2025, and the proposed amendments related to information sharing would come into force immediately on final publication in the Canada Gazette.

There is a 30 day comment period ending December 30, 2024 for the proposed regulations. It is strongly recommended that industry, and potentially impacted companies, review carefully and provide feedback. Comments can be submitted online via the commenting feature after each section of the proposed changes, or via email directly to Erin Hunt, Director General, Financial Crimes and Security Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance, 90 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions related to the proposed changes, or need help starting to plan, you can get in touch using the online form on our website, by emailing us directly at info@outliercanada.com, or by calling us toll-free at 1-844-919-1623.

Regulated Entities Now Covering the Bill For FINTRAC Compliance Costs

Written with Heidi Unrau

 

We have recently become aware that some reporting entities may not be up to speed on a new piece of regulation that came into force earlier this year. If your business has received an invoice from The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), you will want to read this article.

As of April 1, 2024, FINTRAC officially transferred the cost of its compliance activity from taxpayers to the businesses it regulates, referred to as reporting entities (RE). The move comes four years after the government announced its intention to cut the purse strings in its 2020 Fall Economic Statement. This change allows FINTRAC to start recovering costs from the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

Why the Change?

FINTRAC, Canada’s financial intelligence agency, was previously bankrolled by the taxpayer through the federal budget. The purpose of the new funding model is to align the costs of compliance with those responsible for adhering to anti-money laundering regulations. Simply put, the businesses that are legally required to comply should be the ones funding the oversight needed to ensure compliance. The move aligns with other regulatory agencies that have already established funding models allowing them to recover the costs of their supervisory functions.

Each year, FINTRAC will forecast the total cost of the program for the next three fiscal years. This will determine the amount charged to reporting entities for the upcoming year. They must aso communicate how funds were spent against plans and priorities during the previous fiscal year. This information is included in FINTRAC’s Departmental Results Report.

How the Funding Model Works

Federally regulated financial institutions such as banks, trust and loan companies, and insurance companies are always required to contribute a minimum base amount. All other entities only pay if they submit 500 or more threshold transaction reports to FINTRAC in a fiscal year (i.e. large cash transaction reports [LCTRs], large virtual currency transaction reports [LVCTRs], electronic funds transfer reports [EFTRs], and casino disbursement reports [CDRs]). These ‘other entities’ include but are not limited to:

  • Money Services Businesses
  • Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones
  • Real Estate Brokerages
  • Securities Dealers
  • Casinos
  • Etc.

The Cost Formula

FINTRAC calculates how much reporting entities need to pay based on four key factors:

  1. Type of Entity: Federally regulated entities are charged differently from non-federally regulated entities. These include banks, trust and loan companies, and insurance companies. Federally regulated entities are subject to a base amount, whereas non-federally regulated entities are not subject to this particular fee.
  2. Base Amount: This is the minimum starting fee based on the total value of assets controlled by a federally regulated entity, excluding the assets of their subsidiaries. Base amounts are tiered based on asset value in Canadian dollars. There are nine asset value ranges, from $1 to $1 trillion, with corresponding base amounts ranging from $5,000 to $250,000.
    Range of asset values Corresponding base amount
    $1,000,000,000,000 or more $250,000
    Between $500,000,000,000 and $999,999,999,999 $200,000
    Between $100,000,000,000 and $499,999,999,999 $150,000
    Between $10,000,000,000 and $99,999,999,999 $100,000
    Between $1,000,000,000 and $9,999,999,999 $75,000
    Between $500,000,000 and $999,999,999 $50,000
    Between $100,000,000 and $499,999,999 $25,000
    Between $10,000,000 and $99,999,999 $10,000
    Between $1 and $9,999,999 $5,000

    Source: FINTRAC

  3. Remaining Compliance Cost: This is the leftover cost after collecting the base amounts, divided among all types of reporting entities.
  4. Transaction Volume: Businesses that report over 500 large transactions to FINTRAC pay an additional fee on top of the base amount. Federally regulated banks are not subject to this reporting threshold.

Therefore, the more assets you have and transactions reported to FINTRAC, the higher your final bill will be. Each type of business has its own formula for calculating their share of the cost:

Type of Entity (Business) How Charges Are Calculated
Federally Regulated Banks Base Fee + extra charges based on the value of Canadian Assets.
Trust & Loan Companies, Life Insurance Companies Fewer than 500 reports: Base Fee only.

500 or more reports: Base Fee + extra charges based on value of Canadian assets and volume of large transactions reported.
All Other Entities Over 500 reports: Charges based on volume of large transactions reported compared to others in the same category.

Case Study: How Much Will They Pay?

A small, family-owned currency exchange kiosk in Winnipeg, Manitoba, operates from a single location and is not part of a chain. FINTRAC regulates this type of business as a Money Services Business (MSB). The store typically submits roughly 700 large cash transaction reports each year. Since they exceed the 500 reports threshold, FINTRAC calculates their charges like this (based on industry averages):

Calculation

  1. Base Amount: Not applicable because it is not a federally regulated financial institution (FI).
  2. Remaining Compliance Cost: Total compliance cost to be divided is $33,110,000. This is the sum of all base amounts subtracted from the annual cost of FINTRAC’s compliance program.
  3. Total Reports Submitted by All Entities: 35,000,000 transaction reports were submitted to FINTRAC for the year by all reporting entities, including banks.
  4. Total Reports Submitted by Only Non-Bank Entities: 3,500,000 transactions were submitted to FINTRAC by non-bank entities only, regardless of the transaction reporting threshold amount.
  5. Total Reports Submitted Over the Threshold by Non-Bank Entities: 3,425,000 transactions were submitted to FINTRAC by non-bank entities exceeding the 500-transaction reporting threshold.
  6. Number of Reports Submitted by The Currency Exchange Kiosk: This is the total number of transactions reported to FINTRAC by the currency exchange kiosk in Winnipeg, MB.

Final Charge

Using FINTRAC’s formula: $33,110,000 x (3,500,000 ÷ 35,000,000) x (700 ÷ 3,425,000) = $676.70

Result

The currency exchange kiosk’s total charge for the year would be approximately $676.70. Based on their reporting activity, the bill reflects their share of FINTRAC’s overall compliance costs. Because the kiosk is not a federally regulated bank, trust, loan, or insurance company, the base amount does not apply.

FINTRAC will notify the business via email with an invoice for the cost assessment. The total amount owed is final, conclusive, binding, and due in full upon receipt of the invoice.

Impact on Your Business

The additional financial burden is not ideal, especially for small businesses, but there are ways you can prepare for it. First, you’ll need to budget effectively to avoid surprise charges. Visit the FINTRAC website for a detailed breakdown of the formula used for your type of business, known as ‘Type of Entity’.

Exact charges will vary from year to year depending on the value of your Canadian assets (if applicable), the number of large transactions reported (more or less than 500), and FINTRAC’s compliance cost analysis.

Next, and most importantly, you need an effective and efficient anti-money laundering program to avoid the cost of non-compliance. Violations can result in reputational damage that negatively impacts your business as well as potentially expensive fines, known as administrative monetary penalties (AMPs). FINTRAC has recently levied record-breaking fines for serious violations by repeat offenders. These penalties are preventable and well within your control.

Need a Hand?

If you have any questions or concerns about the new funding model, reach out to us today. We’re here to help you every step of the way, from understanding your new financial obligation, to building, reviewing, or fine-tuning your AML program.

Preparing For An iGaming AML Compliance Effectiveness Review

Written with Heidi Unrau

 

iGaming Ontario is celebrating two years in the province. But before your online gaming (iGaming) business can launch, you must register with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). This government body regulates gaming activities in Ontario to ensure the industry operates above board and does not become a breeding ground for illicit activity. iGaming refers to casino-like games that are played over the internet such as Blackjack, Roulette, Poker, and Slot Machines.

As part of the registration process, you must establish an anti-money laundering (AML) program that complies with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and passes a gap analysis, also known as an effectiveness test. If your AGCO registration is successful, your compliance responsibilities don’t stop there.

You must then sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and enter into an operating agreement with Internet Gaming Ontario (iGO). This watchdog organization oversees registered iGaming operators to make sure they consistently fulfill all regulatory obligations, including AML compliance. Here’s what to know about the role of AML in the iGaming registration process and how to set yourself up for long-term success.

Know Your AML Obligations For Registration

Anti-money laundering regulations are designed to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illegal activity, hence the name. If you plan to operate an iGaming business in Ontario, the AGCO requires you to comply with the Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming. These standards include specific AML responsibilities to minimize illegal activity. They typically include, at a high level, but are not limited to:

  • Having documented policies & procedures
  • Designating a Compliance Officer
  • Establishing a training program for all relevant employees
  • Conducting audits & reviews
  • Identifying & verifying customers
  • Risk ranking customers
  • Monitoring transactions
  • Transaction reporting
  • Record keeping

Your AML program must pass a gap review, which is essentially an effectiveness test. This test is a mandatory part of your AGCO registration process to demonstrate that your AML compliance program meets regulatory standards and can function effectively once your platform is live.

Your iGO Operating Agreement

After successfully registering with AGCO, the next step is to execute an operating agreement with its subsidiary, iGO. This organization is responsible for overseeing and managing how private iGaming operators conduct themselves within the province of Ontario.

The iGO registration process requires you to provide a package of documents, templates, and confirmations related to your anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing responsibilities. You’ll be teaming up with iGO’s AML department for this part and the entire process takes approximately two weeks.

Your iGO registration is very similar to the AML component of your AGCO registration. iGO requires you to document your AML policies and procedures as part of the registration process. This documentation should outline measures for preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing activities on your iGaming platform.

You will also need to demonstrate compliance with Canadian AML regulations established by regulatory authorities and iGO as the conduct managing entity.

iGO & Compliance Effectiveness Reviews

Once your iGaming platform is live, you are required to submit to an AML effectiveness review by an independent third party every two years as part of your iGO compliance obligations. The purpose of a regular recurring review is to assess how well your AML program is working, identify weaknesses, and determine whether your business meets requirements. It is also a test to see if your business is doing what it says it’s doing.

A good effectiveness review should mimic a full-scope FINTRAC examination. As Canada’s financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC has the right to audit regulated entities at any time. In this case, iGO would be the direct subject of the examination and they would contact individual operators for specific documentation if necessary.

An effectiveness review not only ensures you remain compliant in your day-to-day operations, it also ensures you’re prepared in the event iGO is examined by FINTRAC.

Scope of the Review

Ongoing effectiveness reviews can include, but are not limited to:

  • Interview staff handling transactions to assess their understanding of policies, procedures, and reporting requirements.
  • Review a sample of records to check compliance with client identification policies.
  • Examine agreements with agents/vendors and review sample information they use for client identification.
  • Check if suspicious transactions were reported to FINTRAC within the required timeframe.
  • Verify application of risk assessment in client records.
  • Assess adequacy and consistency of ongoing monitoring in client records.
  • Confirm implementation of enhanced measures for high-risk clients.
  • Ensure adherence to proper record-keeping procedures.
  • Review and update risk assessment to align with current operations.
  • Update policies and procedures to comply with legislative requirements and reflect current business practices.

After a Review

Once an effectiveness review is complete, the results must be presented to senior management for sign-off. It should include a summary of the findings, a remediation plan, and the status of required changes.

Choosing an AML Program Reviewer

The right AML program reviewer is foundational to the integrity and effectiveness of your compliance program. They should have a deep understanding of the Canadian anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements as well as the specific risks unique to the iGaming industry.

Your chosen reviewer needs to provide a comprehensive and objective assessment of the effectiveness of your AML program, with a final report that identifies deficiencies and includes an action plan for improvement. Therefore, you want a reviewer with relevant experience conducting AML reviews for similar businesses.

Need a Hand?

If you would like to engage Outlier to conduct your AML Compliance Effectiveness Review, have questions about your obligation, or need help creating, reviewing, or updating your AML program, reach out to us today.

The FINTRAC Outage: Guide for AML Reporting Agencies

Written with Heidi Unrau

 

On March 2, 2024, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) experienced a major cyber incident. As a security precaution, FINTRAC has taken most of its reporting systems offline, including MSB registration. Canadian reporting entities remain responsible for all anti-money laundering (AML) requirements during the outage.

Application programming interfaces (APIs) are available for some reports, including large cash transaction reports (LCTRs), large virtual currency transaction reports (LVCTRs), and suspicious transaction reports (STRs), as of April 8, 2024.

Reporting entities that are not able to submit reports via API must do so once other systems are back online. In the interim, special processes for priority STR submission and other notifications have been established.

Watch for Official Guidance

It’s essential that you follow FINTRAC’s official communications regarding the outage. Outlier’s insights are meant to complement this directive, not replace it. The official word from FINTRAC remains the final authority on these matters.

It is recommended that all Canadian AML Compliance Officers sign up for FINTRAC’s mailing list to get the latest news from the regulator (if you are not signed up already).

Accessing FINTRAC’s APIs

As of April 8, 2024, FINTRAC APIs are currently available for:

  • LCTRs
  • LVCTRs
  • STRs

An API is a way for different computer programs to communicate with each other. To use FINTRAC’s APIs, reporting entities must first apply to register and be granted access by FINTRAC. The implementation of APIs for reporting will require the support of your technical team or software provider. Reporting via API is different from batch reporting (for those that use it) as the API provides a secure exchange of information that does not require the installation of batch-transmitting software.

For reporting entities that have not implemented API functionality, additional guidance has been provided by FINTRAC.

Priority STRs

For priority STRs with national security or other dangerous implications, FINTRAC has provided a dedicated email address and telephone number to help you with this (see below).

Please note that the CSIS and RCMP systems for Terrorist Property Reporting (TPR) are unaffected by the outage and remain operational.

Priority STR Submission Contact Info:

  • Email: STR-DOD@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca
  • Call Centre: 1-866-346-8722 (toll free)

Reporting entities that are unsure of whether or not an STR is considered a priority may first contact FINTRAC using the information above to determine whether this submission method should be used. It is expected that STRs submitted via this method will also be re-submitted once systems are back online.

No Late Reporting Penalties

FINTRAC has indicated that the regulator understands that late reporting is an inevitable consequence of the outage. Therefore, FINTRAC has indicated that reporting entities will not be penalized for late reporting (within reason). It is expected that reporting entities will submit reports promptly once systems are back online.

Fulfilling Reporting Obligations

During the outage, reporting entities are required to track all reportable transactions. Keep detailed records of transactions that could not be reported during the outage. This will ensure that all required transaction reports are accurately and efficiently submitted once systems are restored.

In addition to information about reportable transactions, reporting entities should keep detailed records of:

  • The outage timing (provides useful context that may factor into future audit and examination-related data analysis)
  • All late reports submitted
  • Time required to clear the backlog once systems become operational

At this time, FINTRAC has not indicated that reporting entities should submit a voluntary self-declaration of non-compliance (VSDONC) related to late reporting due to the current outage. However, if there is a reporting backlog that will take significant time to clear, this may be considered once the outage has been resolved.

No Paper Submissions!

FINTRAC has explicitly advised against submitting paper copies of reports during the outage. Once the issue has been resolved, electronic reporting through the appropriate channels will resume.

MSB Registration & Inquiries

In a recent update on May 17, 2024, FINTRAC introduced a new web form specifically for existing Money Services Businesses (MSBs). This form allows currently registered MSBs to renew, update, or cancel their registration easily. You can access the form here:

It does not appear that new MSB registrations can be completed at this time. MSB registration inquiries can be directed to:

Be Prepared & Stay Alert

Stay up to date on the latest FINTRAC communications to ensure compliance should directives change.

For critical reporting and MSB registration needs, use the designated emails and phone numbers provided by FINTRAC. Keep all communications clear, concise, and accurate with all the necessary information.

Key FINTRAC Contact Information

Issue Email Phone
New MSB Registration Inquiries MSBRegistration@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca n/a
Existing MSB Registration Renewals, Updates, or Cancellations https://forms-formulaires.alpha.canada.ca/en/id/clwtp4i5j031kx883je15qc78? n/a
Priority STR Reporting STR-DOD@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca 1-866-346-8722
General Inquiries guidelines-lignesdirectrices@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca n/a
API Support tech@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca n/a

Additional Resources

Below, you’ll find a slide deck presentation and a YouTube video with the same information in this article. You are welcome to use and distribute these resources:

Need a Hand?

If you have any questions or concerns, the team at Outlier Solutions are here to help. Please contact us.

Final Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations – October 2023

Background

On October 11, 2023, final amendments to regulations under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act were published in the Canada Gazette. The most noteworthy changes fall under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations and the addition of a new regulation. This round of anticipated changes introduces the compliance requirements for armoured car companies and mortgage lending entities. Additionally, FINTRAC will now be able to charge businesses and individuals for the annual cost of its compliance program as part of its assessment of expenses funding model.

Other changes include the new requirements for correspondent banking relationships, and additional requirements related to the Money Services Business (MSB) registration.

To make reading these changes a little easier, we (thanks Rodney) have created a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, which can be found in a combined document here.

What’s Changed?

From the draft regulations published back in February of this year, there have not been significant changes to the final publication. As expected, entities that collect currency, money orders, traveller’s cheques, or other similar negotiable instruments (except for cheques payable to a named person or entity) will be treated as a new category of MSB. With these changes, such providers will be subject to existing money services businesses requirements.

With respect to mortgage lenders (brokers responsible for mortgage origination, lenders responsible for underwriting the loan or supplying the funds, and administrators responsible for servicing the loan), they will now have to comply with AML compliance requirements imposed on reporting entities. Note the definition of a mortgage lender was changed slightly from the draft regulations, narrowing the scope of who is captured.

As part of the assessment of expenses funding model, the new Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Assessment of Expenses Regulations will allow FINTRAC to pass on expenses, to reporting entities, that it incurs in the administration of the PCMLTFA. Note there have been some changes to the formula that will be used for assessment amounts. The base assessment amount for federally regulated banks, trust and loan companies, and life insurance companies will be based on their value of consolidated Canadian assets that excludes its subsidiary’s reported value of Canadian assets. Guidance related to how reporting entities will be charged has been issued and can be found here.

Please refer to our previous blog post that outlines details on the changes and the exact requirements that will come into force.

What Next?

Requirements for armoured car companies come into force on July 1, 2024, and October 1, 2024 for mortgage lending entities. Effective April 1, 2024, FINTRAC will commence recovering costs from the 2024–25 fiscal year.

In the meantime, FINTRAC will have to issue guidance related to cash transport and mortgage lending. Additionally, there may be FINTRAC policy interpretations that will no longer be able to be relied upon, as it relates to cash transport and mortgage lending.

While we await guidance, armoured car and mortgage lending entities should start working on developing their compliance program in anticipation of the respective in-force dates noted above.

We’re Here To Help

If you would like assistance in understanding what these changes mean to your business, or if you need help in creating or updating your compliance program and processes, please get in touch.

Bill C-47 Amendments To the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

Background

Back on June 22, 2023, Bill C-47 received royal assent. As it relates to AML obligations, this has introduced changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA). We have summarized what we believe to be the most significant changes below.

To make reading these changes a little easier, we (thanks Rodney) have created a redlined version of the legislation, with new content showing as tracked changes, which can be found here.

What’s Changed?

Structuring
Amendments to the PCMLTFA introduce structuring as an offence: “Every person or entity commits an offence that directly or indirectly undertakes, or attempts to undertake, a structured financial transaction.” For clarity, a structured financial transaction is a series of financial transactions that:

  • cause a regulated entity to be in receipt of cash or virtual currency or involve the initiation of an international electronic funds transfer;
  • would, if they occurred as a single financial transaction, require a person or entity referred to report to FINTRAC; and
  • are undertaken with the intent that a regulated entity will not have to report the transaction to FINTRAC.

The offence of structuring would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a term up to five years.

These requirements come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council (which we are still awaiting).

Money Services Businesses (MSBs)
Amendments to the PCMLTFA will prohibit MSBs from engaging with agents or mandataries convicted of certain types of offences. As such, MSBs will be required to perform due diligence on their agents to ensure that they have not committed certain designated offences.

As part of due diligence, the following documents must be obtained and reviewed:

  • a document that sets out their record of criminal convictions, or states that the person does not have one, that is issued by a competent authority in the jurisdiction in which the person resides; or
  • if the agent or mandatary is an entity, for each of the chief executive officer, the president and the directors of the entity and for each person who owns or controls, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of the entity or the shares of the entity, a document that sets out the person’s record of criminal convictions, or states that the person does not have one, and that is issued by a competent authority in the jurisdiction in which the person resides.

If any documentation is in a language other than English or French, the person or entity shall also obtain and review a translation of it.

These requirements come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council (which we are still awaiting).

Also as it relates to MSBs, this round of changes has criminalized the operation of unregistered money services businesses. Any business or entity that knowingly engages in MSB activity for which it is not registered with FINTRAC is guilty of an offence and liable of a fine up to CAD 500,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.

These requirements come into force June 22, 2024.

Back in 2022, The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) published an advisory related to Underground Banking through Unregistered Money Services Businesses highlighting the risk of such activity. If you suspect individuals or businesses are operating unregistered money services businesses or foreign money services businesses, you may wish to submit voluntary information to FINTRAC anonymously.

Other Changes
The amendments to the PCMLTFA will require regulated entities to report to FINTRAC where a reporting obligation arises under the Special Economic Measures Act as well as under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

Related to Ministerial Directives, the Minister of Finance may issue orders setting conditions in respect of the trading or suspend or cancel trading of compliance units or invalidate any trade of compliance units if the Ministers are of the opinion that the trade or use of a compliance unit has a negative impact on the integrity of the Canadian financial system or its reputation.

As it relates to sharing of information, FINTRAC will be able to share information with different governmental departments, which includes sharing information with the Department of Finance for the purposes of granting, revoking, suspending or amending approvals under the Retail Payment Activities Act.

What Next?

Regulated entities that have transaction limits in place that are just under reporting thresholds (i.e., CAD 9,990) may want to rethink those limits and the reasons they are in place, due to the offence of “structuring”.

As it relates to MSB specific changes, compliance program updates may be required where existing agent relationships exist.

As with all legislative changes, we await FINTRAC guidance for clarity.

We’re Here To Help

If you would like assistance in understanding what these changes mean to your business, or if you need help in creating or updating your compliance program and processes, please get in touch.

TW – With Antisemitism on the Rise, Canadian AML Geeks Must Identify Hamas Linked Activity

Since Hamas’ attacks on Israel on October 7th, 2023, several Canadians have been reported dead. Several more are being held hostage.

Closer to home, on October 12th, a day on which Hamas’ leaders were calling for a “global day of Jihad,” three young men, two of whom were minors, entered a Jewish school in Toronto, ON, destroyed property and uttered threats of death and violence. Ultimately, they left the school and were arrested without any violent fallout. They are now free on bail, while students of the school grapple with mounting terror and trauma.

While we have, as Canadians, enjoyed a long period of relative peace and prosperity, we cannot rest in any certainty that global conflicts will not land on our home shores. In all likelihood, they already have.

As practitioners in the anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-terrorist financing (ATF) spaces, we must look to gain deeper understandings of the funding mechanisms that fuel such incidents in the hope that such intelligence can be used to prevent, detect, disrupt and deter such activities. While it is not yet clear whether last week’s school incident was financially motivated, it is noteworthy that there are well-known paths for terrorism funding paths related to attacks against Jews in Israel:

  • Funds originating in Iran, but often flowing through sympathetic third countries flow to terrorist conspirators and their families;
  • Payments are made in specific amounts for the completion of specific tasks: e.g.
    • USD 10,000 for each death of a targeted person, or person from a targeted group; and
    • Additional bonuses paid to the family of the threat actor where they lost their own life, such as in a suicide bombing.

While it does not appear that such brazen attacks are yet being carried out against Jews on Canadian soil, it is nonetheless important to be vigilant. On October 20th, the U.S. AML authority, the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) related updated guidance specific to Hamas and related activity. While the Canadian authority, the Financial Transactions and Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) has not yet released specific guidance, its guidance on terrorism financing, including guidance on ideologically motivated domestic extremism is instructive. The bulletin notes that when reporting to FINTRAC, #IMVE can be used to denote “ideologically motivated violent extremism” in the freeform field.

From the FinCEN bulletin, we know that:

  • Operatives are being harboured in, and funds are flowing through third countries including:
  • Sudan
  • Türkiye
  • Algeria
  • Qatar

From a Canadian perspective, it’s important to note that the sanctions regime related to Iran is not the same as in the US, and it is possible to see transactions originating directly from Iran as well.

Red flags include

  • Transactions with a nexus to sanctioned entities, persons or virtual currency addresses
  • Information in a transaction (such as the message to the recipient) that appears to support Hamas or related terrorist activities
  • Unusual MSB transactions (e.g. a customer that does not usually deal with MSBs) involving MSBs that deal in high risk jurisdictions, including the third countries noted above, or Iran[1]
  • Transactions that involve vaguely named or described “trading companies” that have a nexus in high risk jurisdictions, including the third countries noted above, or Iran
  • Charities or not for profit organizations that collect donations and do not appear to do charitable works, or appear to support Hamas or other terrorist groups, or activities.

Canadian reporting entities can submit suspicious transaction reports to FINTRAC, and should indicate in the opening sentence that the activity being reported may be related to terrorism and threats to Canada’s national security. For non-reporting entities, a voluntary report can also be submitted online. In both cases, the person and/or entity submitting the report is protected so long as the report is made in good faith.

Reports related to matters of national security can also be made directly to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) RCMP National Security Information Network by phone at 1‐800‐420‐5805 or by email at RCMP.NSIN-RISN.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca. Reports can also be made to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) online.

As an AML geek, and as an ally, I urge all readers to be vigilant in your personal and professional lives. Hate cannot be allowed to spread unchecked. Terror must not be permitted to reach into our schools. We must stand against it.

[1] In Canada, transactions with a nexus to Iran are permitted for some purposes, however, all transactions with a known nexus to Iran are reported to FINTRAC under the Canadian Ministerial Directive on Iran – https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/obligations/dir-iri-eng

 

Ministerial Directives Related to Iran & LVCTRs

There have been a number of conversations floating around about FINTRAC Large Virtual Currency Transaction Reporting (LVCTR) obligations as it relates to transactions involving Iran, and potentially involving Iran, under the current Ministerial Directive (MD). While this is not a new requirement (LVCTRs were effective June 1, 2021 and the original MD became effective July 25, 2020), there has been clarification provided with regards to reporting, and what activities trigger which reports.

For background, Outlier Compliance Group wrote an article on what the Iran-related MD entails, so if you are not familiar with the requirements, we suggest starting there.

Existing Guidance

The existing MD guidance does not align with the information provided in a recent policy interpretation for reporting transactions involving Iran that generally are not otherwise reportable, such as a transaction below the reporting threshold. The current guidance says the following:

Any transaction involving the receipt of virtual currency (VC) for exchange to Iranian rial, or VC that is equivalent to an amount under the reporting threshold of $10,000 CAD must be reported using the LVCTR by:

    • Inserting the IR2020 code when using the LVCTR upload; or
    • Selecting IR2020 in the ‘Ministerial Directive’ field of the LVCTR.
    • Because the report is related to the MD, you must ensure that the information provided reflects a connection to Iran.

Recent Interpretation

On June 11, 2023, a policy interpretation was submitted to clarify FINTRAC’s expectations with regards to reporting VC transactions related to the Iran MD. A few specific scenarios were included to ensure an easily digestible response was provided. The portion below is the most noteworthy sections of the response from FINTRAC clarifying the expectation of reporting virtual currency transactions that are below the reporting threshold where there is a nexus to Iran:

To answer your question regarding other instances that could involve the receipt of VC originating from Iran in one or more transactions under the threshold, please refer to section 3) of the Ministerial Directive. It states that any transaction (originating from or bound for Iran) must be treated as a high-risk transaction for the purposes of subsection 9.6(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), and must be reported to FINTRAC. Where these transactions involve the receipt of VC but cannot be reported using an LVCTR, they must be reported using the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) with the IR2020 code.  Only completed transactions can be reported through an STR if the only reason for reporting is that the transaction is originating from or bound for Iran. An attempted transaction should only be reported when you have reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction is related to the attempted commission of a money laundering or terrorist activity financing offence. 

Further to section 3(a) of the Ministerial Directive, you need to look at a variety of elements when determining whether a transaction originates from or is bound for Iran because the circumstances of each transaction are different. The exchange of VC for Iranian rial is not the only circumstance in which a VC transaction may fall under the Ministerial Directive. After you’ve considered the facts, contexts and indicators of a transaction and you determine it is subject to the Ministerial Directive, you must determine if the transaction(s) should be reported using the LVCTR or STR, as described above.

I’ve provided the reporting information for the scenarios you presented in your email:

    1. Virtual currency that originates from an identified virtual currency exchange in Iran.
      • Report the transaction in the STR with code IR2020.
    2. Virtual currency that originates from a wallet address identified as being in or from Iran.
      • When the conductor, beneficiary or third party address details list Iran as the country, and the transaction is not a VC exchange to Iranian rial, report the transaction in the STR with code IR2020.
    3. Travel rule information from the receiving client (or from a participant in the travel rule network) that sent the virtual currency from an address associated with an Iranian virtual currency exchange, or a person or entity in Iran that is not captured under the Ministerial Directive.
      • If a VC transaction has travel rule information that indicates it originates from or is bound for Iran and it does not meet the LVCTR criteria for the Ministerial Directive, the transaction must be reported using the STR with code IR2020.

So What Do I Need To Do?

What is important to understand in this clarification, is the obligation to report every transaction that has a nexus to Iran, such as originating from a VC exchange in Iran, and how that is to be reported. Where a transaction is not otherwise reportable to FINTRAC via an LVCTR, it must be reported using a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) and the MD indicator IR2020 must be selected (we also suggest including IR2020 in the opening of the narrative in Section G). Transactions that are not otherwise reportable to FINTRAC include VC exchange transactions below the reporting threshold, as referenced in the response from FINTRAC.

Moving Forward

In order to ensure you are compliant with the MD obligation, a thorough lookback to June 1, 2021 for all VC transactions below the reporting threshold, that may have had a nexus with Iran, needs to be performed. Should transactions that should have been reported be found, a Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Non Compliance (VSDONC) should be submitted to FINTRAC. For more information on VSDONCs and how to complete one, please see our blog post on the topic.

Need a Hand?

If you are looking for help completing a lookback or would like a second set of eyes on a VSDONC, please feel free to contact us.

Proposed 2023 AML Changes: Mortgage Lenders and Armoured Car Services

Background

February seems to be the month for proposed legislative changes.

On February 18, 2023, draft amendments to the regulations under the Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), and a net-new draft regulation, were published in the Canada Gazette. If you’re the type that likes to read original legislative text, you can find it here. We (thanks Rodney) also created a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, which can be found here.

These changes are meant to renew and improve Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-Terrorist Financing (ATF) regime, adapting to new money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF) risk. One of the most significant changes, in our opinion, is the introduction of two new regulated entity types, mortgage lenders and armoured car companies.

Currently, mortgages issued by financial entities are captured under the PCMLTFA but these amendments would make all entities involved in the mortgage lending process (brokers responsible for mortgage origination, lenders responsible for underwriting the loan, and administrators responsible for servicing the loan) reporting entities. The intent here is to level the playing field between regulated and unregulated mortgage lenders, and to deter misuse of the sector for illicit activities.

While the activity of transportation is not currently supervised for AML purposes per se, armoured car carriers provide services largely to regulated entities. Given the flow of funds that is typically seen in this sector, reconciliation and identification of the origin of funds can sometimes be challenging, and allows funds to move with some degree of anonymity, which is an ML/TF vulnerability.

The draft regulations also introduce new requirements for correspondent banking relationships, and additional requirements related to the Money Services Business (MSB) registration. There are also some technical amendments related to existing reporting requirements and changes related to Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs).

Lastly, a new regulation would introduce a prescribed formula for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to assess the expenses it incurs in the administration of the PCMLTFA against reporting entities. Such models are seen from other regulators, such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC). Currently, FINTRAC is funded through appropriations.

In the following sections, we have summarized what we feel are the most important requirements to note.

Armoured Car Companies

The proposed changes would require a company that engages in “transporting currency or money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments” (except for cheques payable to a named person or entity) to be considered an MSB. As such, the following obligations will have to be met:

  • Development of a compliance program;
  • Maintaining an up-to-date MSB registration with FINTRAC;
  • Conducting compliance effectiveness reviews;
  • Reporting certain transactions;
  • Identifying customers;
  • Record keeping;
  • Risk ranking customers and business relationships;
  • Conducting transaction monitoring and list screening;
  • Conducting enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships; and
  • Follow ministerial directives and transaction restrictions.

One record keeping obligation to note, which is new for armoured car companies, is the requirement to record the following information when transporting CAD 1,000 or more of cash or virtual currency, or CAD 3,000 or more in money orders or similar negotiable instruments:

  • The date and location of collection and delivery;
  • The type and amount of cash, virtual currency or negotiable instrument transported;
  • The name and address of the person or entity that made the request, the nature of their principal business/occupation and, in the case of an individual, their date of birth;
  • The name and address, if known, of each beneficiary;
  • The number of every account affected by the transport, the type of account, and the name of the account holder;
  • Every reference number that is connected to the transport, and has a function; equivalent to that of an account number; and
  • The method of remittance.

An additional requirement that will apply to armoured car companies is in relation to PEP determinations (existing PEP requirements for MSBs still apply). Specifically, a PEP determination is required whenever a person requests that the MSB transport more than CAD 100,000 in cash or virtual currency, or in an amount that is not declared.

Under the proposed regulations, there are some exemptions for reporting that are noteworthy. Large Cash and Large Virtual Currency reporting requirements will not apply where there is an agreement of transportation between:

  • The Bank of Canada and a person or entity in Canada;
  • Two financial entities;
  • Two places of business of the same person or entity; or
  • Canadian currency coins for purposes of delivery under the Royal Canadian Mint.

It is noteworthy, based on the definition, that there may be more than just armoured car companies that are captured under these new requirements. This will be clarified in guidance from FINTRAC that will follow publication of the legislation.

The requirements applicable to armoured car companies will come into force eight months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Mortgage Lending

The proposed regulations would require mortgage lenders, brokers, and administrators (mortgage participants) to put in place compliance regimes, similar to that of other regulated entities, which include the following:

  • Development of a compliance program;
  • Conducting compliance effectiveness reviews;
  • Reporting certain transactions;
  • Identifying customers;
  • Keeping records;
  • Risk ranking customers and business relationships;
  • Conducting transaction monitoring and list screening;
  • Conducting enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships; and
  • Follow ministerial directives and transaction restrictions.

It is noteworthy, that many mortgage brokers already have existing voluntary AML compliance programs and already apply AML measures. This is in part due to various securities regulations and lending partners.

The requirements applicable to mortgage lending will come into force six months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Cost Recovery

As part of this round of regulatory changes, there is a net-new regulation, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Assessment of Expenses Regulations. This regulation will allow FINTRAC to pass on expenses, to reporting entities, that it incurs in the administration of the PCMLTFA. Only the following prescribed entity types are affected by this:

  • Banks and authorized foreign banks;
  • Life insurance companies;
  • Trust and loan corporations; and
  • Every entity that made more than 500 threshold reports during the previous fiscal year.

The regulations provide a formula that FINTRAC would use to calculate the assessment amounts payable by reporting entities on the basis of their annual asset value, and the volume of all threshold transaction reports submitted. For clarity, threshold transaction reports include Large Cash Transaction Reports (LCTRs), Large Virtual Currency Transaction Reports (LVCTRs), Electronic Funds Transfer Reports (EFTRs), and Casino Disbursement Reports (CDRs).

The requirement would come into force on April 1, 2024. This means FINTRAC would commence recovering costs from the 2024-2025 fiscal year and forward.

Other Changes

Enhancing MSB registration

Under the proposed amendments, as part of MSB registration, MSBs would now need to include the telephone numbers and email addresses of its president, directors and every person who owns or controls 20% or more of the MSB. This is in addition to current required information. Additionally, the number of the MSB’s agents, mandataries and branches in each country will be added (currently, only those within Canada are required).

This requirement will come into force twelve months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Streamlining requirements for sending AMPs

Under the proposed amendments, FINTRAC would be allowed to serve a reporting entity solely by electronic means when issuing an AMP. Currently, FINTRAC would also have to send an additional copy by registered mail.

This requirement would come into force on registration.

What Next?

There is a 30 day comment period (ending March 20, 2023) for the proposed regulations. It is strongly recommended that industry, and potentially impacted companies, review carefully and provide feedback. Comments can be submitted online via the commenting feature after each section of the proposed changes, or via email directly to Julien Brazeau, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance, 90 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions related to the proposed changes, or need help starting to plan, you can get in touch using the online form on our website, by emailing us directly at info@outliercanada.com, or by calling us toll-free at 1-844-919-1623.

New Illegal Wildlife Trade Indicators

FINTRAC has published a new Operational Alert on the Illegal Wildlife Trade.

The alert includes diagrams of known fund flows, both into and out of Canada (though the latter is most common). Three categories of indicators are included:

  • General wildlife trade,
  • Import into Canada, and
  • Export from Canada.

As a Compliance Officer, it’s important to think through where these indicators might be visible to you and your team. For instance, if you are offering remittance or payment services, and there is an available memo or purpose of payment field, there are several keywords in the indicators that should be added to your monitoring parameters (if they haven’t been already).

All Canadian reporting entities must use this information to:

  • Update the indicators in training materials,
  • Update the indicators in policies and procedures, and
  • Update transaction monitoring mechanisms (where applicable) to detect relevant indicators.

Of course, if you require assistance, Outlier Compliance is here to help. Please feel free to contact us.

Return to Blog Listing