FinCEN Issues ID Requirement for Cash Buyers of High-End Manhattan and Miami Real Estate
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.13.16
On January 13, the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced that it has issued Geographic Targeting Orders (GTOs) for Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, temporarily requiring certain U.S. title insurance companies to identify and report natural persons who use legal entities to acquire high-end residential properties without external financing.
FinCEN already requires Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators (RMLOs) to have AML programs in place and to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). The new GTOs are an expansion of FinCEN's efforts to mitigate money laundering in the real estate sector.
The GTOs require that the beneficial owners of legal entity purchasers be identified and reported in deals valued at more than $3 million in Manhattan and more than $1 million in Miami-Dade County. The orders define beneficial owners as individuals who, directly or indirectly, own 25 percent or more of the equity interests of the entity that bought the property, a definition of beneficial ownership similar to one FinCEN has proposed in a draft rule on customer due diligence. FinCEN is covering certain title insurance companies because title insurance is common in real estate transactions.
Information reported will be shared with law enforcement agencies, providing insight into the natural persons involved in transactions vulnerable to abuse for money laundering. FinCEN anticipates that the GTOs will make it more difficult for individual purchasers behind the covered transactions to disguise their involvement, mitigating the key vulnerability of such "all cash" transactions.
The program only covers two markets and is of limited duration, taking effect on March 1, 2016 and expiring on August 27, 2016. If FinCEN finds suspicious activity in many sales, it reportedly plans to develop permanent reporting requirements for the entire U.S. real estate market.
The Bank Secrecy Act provides for the imposition of an AML program requirement on "persons involved in real estate closing and settlements" because such persons are part of the Act's broad definition of "financial institutions." However, FinCEN has exempted such persons and certain other businesses defined as "financial institutions" under the Act from this requirement while it studies the extent to which AML programs are appropriate for those industries. In 2003, FinCEN published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making specifically to consider the imposition of AML requirements on persons involved in real estate closing and settlements, in which it recognized that real estate had been and might continue to be used for money laundering, but never issued a final rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
