The postponement of key anti-money laundering rules for investment advisers in the United States is raising concern among AML professionals, regulators, and risk managers about heightened vulnerabilities to money laundering and terrorism financing. As the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has confirmed the two-year delay of the Investment Adviser Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program Rule (IA AML Rule), the spotlight is back on a long-standing gap in the U.S. regulatory perimeter. This gap provides opportunities for criminals, illicit actors, and terrorist financiers to exploit investment advisers and related structures.

How Investment Advisers Have Historically Been Exploited for Illicit Finance

Investment advisers play a crucial role in channeling billions of dollars into complex financial products, pooled investment vehicles, and cross-border structures. Unlike banks, broker-dealers, and most other covered financial institutions, registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers (ERAs) have not been fully subject to the comprehensive requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This regulatory asymmetry has been recognized for years as a vulnerability in the fight against financial crime.

Criminal networks and kleptocratic actors have targeted investment advisers and their clients for several reasons:

• Opaque Ownership Structures: Investment advisers routinely create, manage, or advise on structures such as private equity funds, hedge funds, and offshore vehicles, where beneficial ownership can be obscured.
• Cross-Border Transactions: Advisers often facilitate capital movements across multiple jurisdictions, increasing the difficulty for authorities to track illicit funds.
• Regulatory Gaps: Unlike other financial firms, advisers have not been required to establish formal AML/CFT programs, submit suspicious activity reports (SARs), or carry out customer identification and due diligence at the same level.
• Limited Transaction Monitoring: The lack of standardized monitoring increases the risk of undetected layering and integration of proceeds from crime.
• Use by High-Risk Clients: Foreign politically exposed persons (PEPs), sanctioned individuals, and shell companies have been known to access U.S. capital markets via investment advisers.

Cases documented by U.S. and international authorities demonstrate that these loopholes have been exploited for laundering proceeds from corruption, tax evasion, organized crime, and the financing of terrorist operations.

Why the Postponement Increases the Risk of Financial Crime

The postponement of the IA AML Rule to 2028, after already protracted delays, means that the sector remains outside the direct reach of several core AML/CFT requirements. This delay does not merely represent a bureaucratic technicality—it leaves a significant portion of the U.S. financial system less protected against sophisticated financial crime schemes.

Key Risk Drivers:

1. No Mandatory AML/CFT Programs: RIAs and ERAs will continue to operate without the legal obligation to implement risk-based AML/CFT programs. This increases the sector’s exposure to criminal exploitation.
2. No Suspicious Activity Reporting: Without a SAR obligation, investment advisers may not report red flags associated with money laundering, fraud, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion, allowing illicit actors to use these channels undetected.
3. No Uniform Customer Identification Requirements: The absence of standardized customer due diligence and beneficial ownership identification rules opens the door to the use of anonymous entities and front companies.
4. Limited Regulatory Oversight: While some advisers may voluntarily adopt best practices or follow SEC guidance, the absence of enforceable requirements makes regulatory arbitrage possible.
5. Growing Use of Private Markets: The expansion of private equity, venture capital, and real estate investment funds—often advised or managed by investment advisers—provides criminals with new entry points for the integration of illicit proceeds.
6. Technology and Innovation Risks: Digital assets, alternative funds, and emerging financial products, often introduced by or through investment advisers, create further opportunities for the concealment and movement of illicit capital.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has repeatedly highlighted the need for consistent AML/CFT coverage of all gatekeeper professions, including investment advisers. The United States has received criticism in past mutual evaluations for not applying robust controls to this sector.

Potential Consequences for the U.S. and Global Financial System

The continued exclusion of investment advisers from key AML/CFT obligations presents direct and indirect risks:

• Increased Attractiveness to Criminals: The lack of regulation may signal to money launderers and terrorist financiers that the investment adviser sector is a “safe haven” for moving and integrating illicit funds.
• Reputational Harm: Ongoing deficiencies can undermine confidence in U.S. financial markets and reduce the willingness of other countries to cooperate with U.S. entities.
• International Pressure: Allies and global standard-setters may impose additional due diligence requirements on U.S. financial institutions or advise against transacting with certain U.S. advisers.
• Regulatory Arbitrage: Criminals will exploit the gap between stricter regulated entities (such as banks and broker-dealers) and less-regulated investment advisers, transferring risk rather than mitigating it.
• Delayed Detection of Terrorism Financing: The absence of SAR filing obligations means that links between capital flows and terrorist activity may go undetected for longer, potentially enabling attacks or the procurement of weapons.

What the Postponement Means for AML/CFT Professionals

For AML and compliance officers, the delay creates a challenging environment. There is uncertainty about future regulatory requirements, but also a pressing need to mitigate risks in real-time. Many larger advisers, especially those affiliated with global financial institutions, have voluntarily implemented internal AML/CFT programs aligned with international best practices. However, these are not consistent across the industry, and smaller advisers often lack resources, expertise, or incentive to adopt such controls without legal compulsion.

Professionals in the sector now face several practical questions:

• Should investment advisers voluntarily implement AML/CFT frameworks in anticipation of future rules, or wait until they are mandatory?
• How should client risk assessments be updated to reflect the ongoing regulatory gap?
• What due diligence measures are appropriate when dealing with high-risk clients or transactions?
• How can information sharing be enhanced with banks and other counterparties to fill reporting gaps?
• What are the implications for cross-border transactions and correspondent relationships, given heightened global scrutiny?

These questions require careful consideration and collaboration between compliance teams, legal advisors, and business leadership.

The Role of Existing U.S. and International Laws

While the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act form the core of the U.S. AML/CFT framework, their application to investment advisers has historically been limited. The BSA (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.) imposes AML/CFT program requirements and SAR filing obligations on banks, money services businesses, broker-dealers, and several other financial institution types. It was only in recent years that FinCEN finalized rules to include investment advisers, but these have repeatedly faced delays.

Internationally, the FATF Recommendations set the global AML/CFT standard, requiring countries to apply preventive measures to all relevant financial and non-financial businesses and professions. Several U.S. partners, including the UK and the European Union, have already extended AML/CFT rules to cover investment managers and advisers under the EU’s Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLD 5 and AMLD 6).

This ongoing regulatory gap has contributed to risk ratings for the U.S. and may influence future FATF mutual evaluation outcomes.

Anticipating the Future of AML/CFT Compliance in the Investment Adviser Sector

Looking forward, the postponement of the IA AML Rule is expected to catalyze debate among regulators, industry groups, and international bodies about the best approach to closing this loophole. Stakeholders will need to balance regulatory burden, business diversity, and the imperative of effective financial crime prevention.

Several scenarios may unfold:

• FinCEN and the SEC could introduce phased or risk-based requirements, allowing smaller advisers more time to comply while holding larger, higher-risk firms to stricter standards.
• There may be industry-driven initiatives to establish voluntary standards or codes of conduct in the absence of a legal mandate.
• International regulatory pressure could push U.S. policymakers to act more swiftly, particularly if high-profile cases emerge that link investment advisers to serious financial crimes.

Regardless of the exact pathway, the sector remains in the crosshairs of criminal groups seeking to exploit weak points in the system.

Conclusion: Addressing the Rising Threat of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing

The delay in implementing comprehensive AML/CFT obligations for U.S. investment advisers represents a significant risk to the integrity of the U.S. and global financial system. Without mandatory AML programs, SAR filing, and customer identification measures, investment advisers remain an attractive target for money launderers and terrorist financiers. While regulators weigh how best to balance costs and benefits, criminals are likely to exploit this extended window of opportunity.

AML professionals, investment advisers, and their clients must recognize the heightened risk environment and proactively seek to address vulnerabilities, regardless of regulatory delays. Only by anticipating future requirements and fostering a culture of compliance can the industry protect itself from the escalating threat of financial crime.

---

Related Links

• Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.)
• FATF Recommendations on the Financial Sector
• SEC — Guidance for Investment Advisers
• EU Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive

Other FinCrime Central Articles About FinCEN Decisions

• FinCEN Extends Real Estate Targeting Orders to Combat Illicit Activity
• How FINCEN’s Geographic Targeting Order Aims to Disrupt Cartel Money Laundering
• FinCEN Won’t Issue Fines for Corporate Transparency Act Deadline

Source: U.S. Treasury

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand with us or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.