PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Industry Leaders Roundtable Session

This gathering provides a unique opportunity to discuss and network with executives and leaders in the AML industry, fostering meaningful dialogue in a confidential setting guided by the Chatham House Rule.

During the session, the new regulatory updates, key topics, and challenges faced by REs in the industry will be addressed. This discussion aims to bring together decision-makers and industry experts to foster collaboration, exchange insights, and explore solutions to pressing challenges.

Details & Registration: By invitation only; further details forthcoming

New Beneficial Ownership Discrepancy Reporting

Effective October 1, 2025, Canadian anti-money laundering (AML) reporting entities regulated by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) are required to report to Corporations Canada any material discrepancies identified between the beneficial ownership information that they have obtained and that is listed in Corporations Canada’s database.

Background

This requirement was introduced to enhance the reliability of beneficial ownership information available to authorities and the public, and to reduce the opportunities for misuse of Canadian corporate structures in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions avoidance schemes. Since the usefulness of the beneficial ownership information depends on the accuracy of the information, amendments under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) now will require reporting entities to flag material discrepancies between the information provided by a corporation incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) and what is recorded in the registry, thereby supporting Corporations Canada in maintaining an accurate database.

A “material discrepancy” exists where beneficial ownership information collected by a reporting entity substantively contradicts what is publicly disclosed. While the regulations give limited guidance, missing beneficial owners are considered material, while minor typographical errors are not. Currently, the definition of “material” remains imprecise, which may create some uncertainty for compliance teams.

Who Must Comply

The requirement applies to reporting entities who have the existing obligation to take reasonable measures to confirm the accuracy of beneficial ownership information when they first obtain it and in the course of conducting ongoing monitoring of their business relationships.

Discrepancy reporting applies only to CBCA corporations that are active on the Corporations Canada registry.

When to Report

Reporting entities are required to report a material discrepancy to Corporations Canada within 30 days after the day on which it is identified when the following criteria are met:

  • A client is an active CBCA corporation; and
  • The reporting entity determines that the corporation is high-risk for money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion; and 
  • When there is a material discrepancy in beneficial ownership information that is not resolved within 30 days. Note there is no requirement to address the material discrepancy directly  with the customer. 

In these cases, reporting entities must check the Corporations Canada registry when a high-risk relationship is first identified and continue to check during ongoing monitoring of that high-risk business relationship.

If a previously reported discrepancy is identified again (i.e., during the course of ongoing monitoring) and it has not been resolved, it must be reported again. If there are other issues related to corporate status or registry info (not beneficial ownership information), this information can still be reported to Corporations Canada, but it must be done so separately. Voluntary reporting is permitted if the client is considered low-risk, but discrepancies are still found.

Reporting Steps

Reports are submitted through Corporations Canada’s online portal (accessed through the registry). The process is as follows:

  1. Ensure your reporting entity is registered for FINTRAC Web Reporting (FWR), and that the individual completing the reporting has an active My ISED account with Corporations Canada.
  2. Search the corporation on the Corporations Canada website to confirm it is an active CBCA corporation.
  3. While in Corporations Canada’s online portal, from the page connected to the corporation about which the discrepancy is being reported, select “Report an Issue” (currently a link at the bottom right of the page). This will prompt a My ISED login.
  4. Complete the discrepancy form with:
    • Reporting entity details (legal name, RE number, location, compliance contact/email). This information will auto-populate after the first report. 
    • Corporation details (name and incorporation number for the company you are reporting on).
    • Selecting the reason for reporting a discrepancy (reporting as required under PCMLTFA or voluntary).
    • Discrepancy details (nature of inconsistency, date identified).
  5. Review the information for accuracy and submit the report.
  6. A confirmation screen will appear, including a reference number 
  7. Corporations Canada will validate the report and issue an acknowledgment within 10 business days.
  8. Keep a copy of the acknowledgement as evidence of the completed discrepancy reporting.
  9. If the discrepancy has not been resolved by the next time you complete periodic monitoring for the entity, the process is repeated.

For more detailed steps on reporting, you may refer to the guidance on submitting a beneficial ownership discrepancy report or the following Corporations Canada demo video, which together provide a comprehensive overview.

 

Note that inaccurate or incomplete reporting entity information will result in an invalid Beneficial Ownership discrepancy report. Amendments to submitted reports are currently not possible, and a new report will have to be submitted. 

Reporting entities must retain the report acknowledgment and other supporting documentation as evidence of meeting obligations. 

We’re Here To Help

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

FINTRAC Information Requests for Bitcoin ATM Operators

As compliance geeks, we’re compelled to open with some important caveats. This post is made by Outlier Compliance Group, which is a private consulting firm, and does not speak in any official capacity for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) regulator. If FINTRAC indicates something that does not align with the views expressed here, it’s safe to assume that their position is the correct one (and if that’s the case, please let us know).

What’s the issue?

Several clients and colleagues called us with questions about email requests for information received from FINTRAC in January/February 2025. These requests were received by virtual currency (VC) dealers that operate one or more automated teller machines (ATMs). To some, these emails seemed unusual, and in a time in which we’re all bombarded with scams, it makes sense to check the legitimacy.

As a first step, we always check the sender. In this case, the email was from MSBRegistration@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca which is a legitimate FINTRAC email address. All FINTRAC email addresses end in “@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca”. It is noteworthy that there may be some phishing red flags present, although these were legitimate emails:

  • The receiving company is not specified (other than by the receiver’s email address);
  • The intended recipient is not named (other than by the receiver’s email address), and at least one email that we saw was directed to “to whom it may concern”;
  • The request for information asks for a response by email, rather than a more secure channel such as Canada Post’s ePost service, which FINTRAC generally uses to receive information during examinations.

FINTRAC has confirmed that these requests for data are legitimate, and that businesses receiving the requests that prefer to send data via a secure method (ePost) may request to do so.

What’s being requested?

The subject line of the email is “Request for Wallet Addresses Information under subsection 63.1(2) of the PCMLTFA” and, as implied, FINTRAC is requesting comprehensive lists of the VC addresses used by the companies.

While the data being requested (virtual currency wallet addresses) is public in some ways (transactions are posted on public blockchains), not all wallets are attributed to specific businesses, and there are many reasons that a business may prefer to exchange this data with the regulator securely.

No time period is provided in the request, and for some companies, particularly those that use hierarchical deterministic wallet types, which generate new addresses for every transaction, this can mean thousands of addresses. If this is the case, we recommend reaching out to FINTRAC as soon as possible, as a smaller time period may suffice for the regulator’s analysis, depending on the transaction volumes.

What is Section 63.1(2) of the PCMLTFA?

The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) section 63.1(2) reads:

Obligation to provide information

(2) The person or entity on whom the notice is served shall provide, in accordance with the notice, the documents or other information with respect to the administration of Part 1 or 1.1 that the authorized person may reasonably require.

In plain language, this means that FINTRAC has the right to request information from reporting entities, and they are exercising this right by sending the request that you’ve received.

Did you receive an email?

If you are a VC ATM operator, and you aren’t sure if you’ve received a request, check your e-mail (including spam and deleted folders) using the search terms:

  • Request for Wallet Addresses Information under subsection 63.1(2) of the PCMLTFA; and/or
  • MSBRegistration@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca.

We aren’t sure if this request was sent to all VC ATM operators, or only a select group (again, we don’t speak for FINTRAC), but if you did receive a request, it’s important to respond to it within the time indicated in the email. Like all requests from regulators, it is time sensitive.

Need a hand?

If you have questions about how to respond to FINTRAC’s request, or AML generally, please feel free to contact us here, or by email at info@outliercanada.com.

New Year – New Regs. Final Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and Regulations – January 2025

Background

On January 1, 2025 final amendments to regulations under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act were published in the Canada Gazette (SOR 2024-266 and SOR 2024-267). The most noteworthy changes fall under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations. The final amendments include changes or new requirements related to:

  • MSB registration framework;
  • Sanctioned property reporting;
  • White-label ATMs;
  • Real estate (title insurance and unrepresented third-parties); and
  • Casino disbursements.

The regulatory impact statement states that these amendments implement measures announced in previous budgets, the 2023 Fall Economic Statement, our Parliamentary Review and Cullen Commission report ahead of Canada’s upcoming mutual evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

To make reading these changes a little easier, as we always do, (thanks Rodney) a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, is attached here.

What’s Changing?

From the draft regulations published back in July 2024, there have not been significant changes to the final publication. Some changes were made to address potential gaps, inconsistencies, and business realities in the context of application, and to provide greater flexibility in the coming-into-force dates. The most notable change from the draft relates to obligations for title insurers.

Below is a summary of what we feel are the most noteworthy changes and incoming requirements:

MSB Registration Framework

Money Services Businesses (MSBs) must register with FINTRAC. As part of registration, it will now be required to submit the following documentation as part of the application.

If the applicant is a corporation:

  • a certificate of incorporation or the most recent version of any other record that confirms its existence as a corporation and contains its name and address and the names of its directors; and
  • a document that sets out the ownership, control and structure of the corporation.

If the applicant is an entity other than a corporation:

  • the partnership agreement, articles of association or the most recent version of any other record that confirms its existence and contains its name and address; and
  • a document that sets out the ownership, control and structure of the entity.

Additionally, domestic MSBs will have to submit criminal record checks covering the CEO, President and directors, as well as every person who owns or controls 20% or more of the MSB. These criminal record checks must also be updated every two years as part of the renewal process. Where an MSB uses an agent or mandatary, criminal record checks are also required on those individuals. It should be noted that the 20% threshold does not align with reporting entity requirements for beneficial owners, which is at 25%. While industry asked for these numbers to align, Finance did not accept the change.

Sanctioned Property Reporting

The final amendments expand the definition of a listed person or entity to capture individuals and entities listed under all Canadian sanctions legislation including Special Economic Measures Act, the United Nations Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.

These changes also result in a new sanctioned property report. The report includes information fields such as:

  • how the reporting entity came to know that property in question is owned, held or controlled by or on behalf of listed person or entity;
  • the name of any person or entity that owns, holds or controls property on behalf of listed person or entity;
  • the name of any person or entity that has an interest or right in or is authorized to deal with property; and
  • a description of transactions involving property within previous six months.

White-Label ATMs

Final amendments will require those that provide acquiring services to white-label ATMs (WLATMs) to register with FINTRAC as MSBs and implement a full AML compliance regime. 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.

In addition to the records that must be retained as an MSB, WLATM operators will need to keep the following records:

  • Information on who owns, leases or operates a private automated banking machine in respect of which they provide acquirer services;
  • Information on the source of the cash that is loaded into a private automated banking machine in respect of which they provide acquirer services;
  • Information on account holder of a settlement account for a private automated banking machine in respect of which they provide acquirer services; and
  • The source and method used to transport cash loaded into a private automated banking machine.

Real Estate – Title Insurance

Final amendments will make title insurers reporting entities under Canada’s AML/ATF Regime. Title insurers are defined as a person or entity that is engaged in the business of providing title insurance, as defined in the schedule to the Insurance Companies Act when they provide a title insurance policy to the purchaser of real property or an immovable.

Specifically, title insurers will be required to develop a compliance program, meet certain identity verification requirements, submit required reporting to FINTRAC, keep certain records, and follow application Ministerial Directives.

It should be noted that changes were made to remove certain record-keeping obligations noted in the draft regulations. Title insurers will only be required to keep records of information that is obtained for the sale of title insurance. The following are the specific records that must be kept for every title insurance policy provided to a purchaser of real property or an immovable:

  • the name and address of the purchaser and, in the case of a person, their date of birth;
  • the legal description and address of the real property or immovable;
  • the closing date of the purchase;
  • the purchase price;
  • the amount of any loan secured by a mortgage on the real property or a hypothec on the immovable and the name of the lender;
  • if known, the name of the vendor; and
  • any title information respecting the real property or immovable that is found in the land registry in which the title to the real property or immovable is recorded.

Given title insurers’ business model, wherein they do not have direct contact with the purchasers of title insurance, final amendments have been updated to remove beneficial ownership requirements as well as exempt third-party determination and PEP requirements for title insurers.

Real Estate – Unrepresented Parties

Final amendments will require real estate brokers and sales representatives to identify the party or parties (including third parties) not represented in real estate transactions. This is a change from the current requirement where real estate brokers and sales representatives are only required to take “reasonable measures” to identify unrepresented parties.

What Next?

The requirements summarized above come into force October 1, 2025. In the meantime, FINTRAC will have to issue guidance which has been promised before the noted in-force date.

While we await guidance, newly regulated entities should start working on developing their compliance program in anticipation of the respective in-force dates noted above. Other Reporting Entity types should take note of MSB framework changes and changes related to sanction property as it relates to their business model.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Return to Blog Listing