“Canada’s Revised AML Framework: Sweeping Penalties And Compliance Requirements” —

• “Having received royal assent on March 26, 2026, Bill C‑12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, has significantly reshaped Canada’s anti‑money laundering (‘AML’) landscape. The bill established higher monetary penalties and stricter compliance requirements by, among other things, amending the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the ‘PCMLTFA’) and enhancing oversight by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (‘FINTRAC’). Indeed, entities and individuals now face heightened penalties and more stringent requirements, while, at the same time, enrolment obligations have been extended to a broader range of parties. Below, we will discuss some of the most prominent updates being implemented.”
• “Unprecedented penalties. Further to our commentary dated July 15, 2025 regarding Bill C-2, several of the amendments initially contemplated therein were restated in Bill C‑12. In fact, one of the most anticipated changes was the increase of administrative monetary penalties (‘AMPs’) to forty times their previous levels, as can be seen in the table below: ”
  Violation Class Old Maximum Penalty New Maximum Penalty. Minor CA$1,000 CA$40,000. Serious CA$100,000. CA$4,000,000. Very serious CA$500,000 CA$20,000,000.”
• “Similarly, the maximum penalty for a violation has gone from $100,000 to $4,000,000 if the violation is committed by a person, and from $500,000 to $20,000,000 if the violation is committed by an entity. Consequently, the financial burden of a penalty has significantly increased and ensuring compliance has become increasingly pressing.”
• “Bill C-12 has also imposed a more stringent requirement with respect to the establishment by entities of a compliance program. In fact, the bill requires the entities to put in place a compliance program which is ‘reasonably designed, risk-based and effective’. In practical terms, FINTRAC would no longer limit its oversight to the formal existence of a compliance program, but would scrutinize its effectiveness and its likelihood of achieving meaningful compliance outcomes.”

“FinCEN Proposes New Rules for AML Whistleblower Incentives and Protections” —

• “The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘Whistleblower Incentives and Protections.’ The proposal implements 31 USC § 5323 as amended by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act) and the AML Whistleblower Improvement Act of 2022, establishing procedures for submitting tips, applying for awards and obtaining confidentiality and anti-retaliation protections. The NPRM represents a significant step toward operationalizing a program that Congress authorized over five years ago, and it carries meaningful practical implications for financial institutions.”
• “Scope: Beyond the BSA.”The proposed program would cover potential violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and certain sanctions-related statutes – including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the Kingpin Act). FinCEN also positions the program as supporting enforcement of the US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Outbound Investment Security Program and the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Data Security Program where those matters fall within the scope of the covered statutes. The broad statutory reach means that potential whistleblowers are not limited to traditional AML scenarios – sanctions compliance failures and related conduct are squarely within scope.”
• “Awards: 10-30%, with a presumption of maximum for smaller cases”
• “A ‘covered action’ is defined in the NPRM as a Treasury or DOJ judicial or administrative action that is successfully enforced and results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. Awards would be paid within a statutory range of 10-30% of collected monetary sanctions in covered and related actions, with awards paid from the Financial Integrity Fund.”
• “A key tension: The 120-day waiting period for compliance and audit personnel”
• “One of the most consequential provisions for financial institutions is the proposed 120-day waiting period. Certain individuals – including officers, directors and partners who learned information through internal reporting processes, and employees whose principal duties involve audit or compliance (including those at firms retained to perform audit or compliance functions) – would be required to wait at least 120 days after obtaining the information before submitting it to FinCEN to remain award-eligible. FinCEN’s stated rationale is to preserve incentives for robust internal compliance programs and to give entities time to review, remediate and voluntarily disclose issues, while minimizing harm from delayed reporting.”
• “For institutions, this window creates both an opportunity and an obligation. Companies should anticipate how their internal reporting, triage and escalation processes will operate within that 120-day period, and should ensure that appropriate remediation and voluntary disclosure mechanisms are in place to take advantage of it.”
• “FinCEN also proposes that no person may impede an individual from communicating directly with Treasury or DOJ about possible violations, including by discouraging, hindering or delaying such communications.”
• “Rights and remedies under the proposed rule would be nonwaivable – including through pre-dispute arbitration agreements, which would be invalid and unenforceable to the extent they require arbitration of a dispute arising under 31 USC § 5323 or the implementing regulation.”
• “Comments on the NPRM are due by June 1, 2026. Covered entities and other interested parties should consider submitting comments to help shape the final rule.”

“Gibson Dunn announces release of the International Comparative Legal Guide – Anti-Money Laundering 2026” —

• “Gibson Dunn is pleased to announce with Global Legal Group the release of the International Comparative Legal Guide – Anti-Money Laundering 2026. Gibson Dunn partners Stephanie L. Brooker and M. Kendall Day are the Contributing Editors of the publication, which covers issues including criminal enforcement, regulatory and administrative enforcement, and requirements for financial institutions and other designated businesses. The Guide, comprised of 4 expert analysis chapters and 16 jurisdictions, is live and FREE to access HERE.”

“A day in the life of the Law Society’s anti-money-laundering unit”

• “The Law Society’s dedicated anti-money-laundering unit is housed within the Regulation Department, where all AML matters are dealt with by a single team. Mary Hallissey acts a bit shady”
• “Solicitors who provide AML-regulated legal services must comply with certain statutory obligations that apply to how solicitors both manage their AML compliance requirements within their practices and their mandatory obligation to report suspicions of money-laundering to the relevant authorities.”
• “In 2023/2024, the Law Society took the strategic decision to set up a dedicated AML unit housed within its Regulation Department, where all AML matters relating to regulation, education, and external-stakeholder engagement are dealt with by a single team, with input from colleagues in Financial Regulation and Regulatory Legal Services.”
• “Ciara McQuillan and Riona Leahy are both AML executives and solicitors in this new unit.”
• “Ciara points out that a single rulebook is emerging for anti-money-laundering – and the majority of the EU AML Regulation will have direct effect in all EU member states, including Ireland.”
• “These requirements will include: A directly applicable EU regulation creating a more harmonised ‘single rulebook’ for preventive controls; A new directive that updates how national systems, FIUs, and supervisors operate; and A regulation establishing the EU Anti-Money-Laundering Authority.”
• “Separately, EU criminal-law measures continue to harmonise money-laundering offences and sanctions across member states.”
• “Customer due diligence (CDD) will become more prescriptive, with firms expected to apply more standardised checks and follow clearer, more detailed rule-sets than under many current national approaches.”
• “In practical terms, CDD will require the collection of more information, supported by more robust documentation, and a clearer evidential trail showing how identity, beneficial ownership, and the purpose and nature of the relationship were assessed.”
• “Firms should also expect a stronger emphasis on consistency of outcomes, record-keeping, and being able to demonstrate compliance – not just that checks were performed.”
• “In terms of the forthcoming changes to the regulations, Ciara explains: ‘Solicitors are now required to seek much stronger proof of identification from new clients, such as passports, along with proof of nationality and proof of birthplace. Solicitors must also verify more than one source of client identification, with many more data points to be collected, before starting to deliver any AML-regulated legal service – particularly, but not solely, those concerning real estate.’”
• “She points to the Register of Beneficial Ownership as an indicator of the beefed-up obligations to declare interests.”
• “The Law Society’s Regulation of Practice Committee and Conveyancing Committee together recently published guidance for solicitors in this arena. The consequences for solicitors who fail to comply are grave, including a potential risk to livelihood and professional reputation.”
• “Not only do solicitors have obligations to comply with AML legislation to ensure that their practices cannot be used as conduits to launder illicit funds but, additionally, they have an obligation to submit a suspicious transaction report (STR) to FIU Ireland and to Revenue if a suspicion arises of an offence of money-laundering or terrorist-financing. Failure to comply with this obligation is a criminal offence.”
• “In addition, she cautions that ‘solicitors should be particularly on the lookout for social-welfare fraud or tax fraud, where substantial funds may get laundered through a property transaction’.”
• “AML risk assessments should now be deeply embedded in business-risk assessments in every law firm, they stress. While minor compliance infringements are dealt with by the Law Society on a practical, case-by-case basis – with the focus on educating rather than heavy-handed sanctioning – failure to comply with the AML regulations is serious, not just with the Law Society as supervisor, but in terms of a criminal-offence element.”
• “Firms who fail to demonstrate that they have sufficient measures in place to mitigate risk, and that they have been applying those measures, may find themselves subject to an external AML audit, issued with a formal direction to take certain action or, at the most serious end of the non-compliance scale, could be referred to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.”
• “It’s not enough to have a beautifully written suite of business-risk assessments, policies, controls, and procedures in place in a practice if the contents of them are not being applied by the solicitor on the files, advises Ciara. It is also crucially important that the reasons that a solicitor assesses risk in relation to a transaction in a certain way is fully documented.”
• “Ciara and Riona also point to the potential reputational damage to a law firm if, for instance, it is linked to a Criminal Asset Bureau investigation.”