On November 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a finding (“Finding”) and related notice of proposed rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), targeting ten Mexico-based gambling establishments (“Gambling Establishments”).  FinCEN found transactions involving the Gambling Establishments to constitute a “class of transactions” of “primary money-laundering concern” for purposes of Section 311.  In particular, FinCEN found that the Gambling Establishments ultimately were controlled by a criminal group that used the establishments to facilitate money laundering for the Sinaloa Cartel. 

The Finding allows FinCEN to propose one or more of five “special measures” to address the Finding.  FinCEN has proposed to impose the fifth special measure, which would:

(1) prohibit certain U.S. “covered financial institutions” (banks, broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers in commodities, and mutual funds) from “opening or maintaining in the United States any correspondent account for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution” if the account is “used to process a transaction involving any of the Gambling Establishments;” and

(2) require covered financial institutions to apply special due diligence to their correspondent accounts reasonably designed to prevent the accounts from being used to process transactions involving the Gambling Establishments, including by transmitting a predetermined notice to any foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe provide services to any of the Gambling Establishments, concerning the U.S. institution’s obligation not to process transactions involving any of the Gambling Establishments through the U.S. correspondent account. 

If implemented in its current form, the Proposed Rule would largely sever the Gambling Establishments’ access to the U.S. financial system.

FinCEN said that it issued the Finding and Proposed Rule in coordination with the Government of Mexico and Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).  Also on November 13, OFAC imposed blocking sanctions on 27 individuals and entities located in Mexico, Canada, and Poland connected to the Hysa Organized Crime Group (“HOCG”), which OFAC says controls the Gambling Establishments (and thus appears to be the group FinCEN references in the Proposed Rule).  The Mexican government took parallel steps to block operations of thirteen casinos for alleged money laundering ties and referred individuals and entities OFAC designated to the Mexican Attorney General.   

Noteworthy Aspects of the Proposed Rule

If finalized, the Proposed Rule would appear to be the first time FinCEN has imposed special measures against a “class of transactions.”  FinCEN proposed special measures in 2023 against a class of transactions involving techniques to obfuscate details of certain cryptocurrency transactions but has not finalized it.

Several other aspects of the Proposed Rule are likewise noteworthy:

1. The sweep of the Proposed Rule appears potentially broader than what FinCEN typically includes when imposing Special Measure 5 against banks and other covered financial institutions.  In the past, such actions typically have prohibited U.S. banks from establishing or maintaining correspondent accounts for or on behalf of the Section 311 target, or processing transactions for the correspondent account of a foreign bank “if such a transaction involves” the target.  The text of the Proposed Rule prohibits U.S. correspondent accounts for foreign banks “if such correspondent account is used to process a transaction involving any of the Gambling Establishments.”  This could be read to mean that a single transaction by a foreign bank for one of the Gambling Establishments would prohibit a covered U.S. financial institution from continuing to provide the correspondent account to a foreign bank.  It is not clear if this is the intent – at one point, FinCEN summarizes the Proposed Rule by calling it a “prohibition on transactions involving the Gambling Establishments’ use of correspondent banking relationships,” which is closer to the traditional formulation noted above.
2. FinCEN is proposing to define the term “financial institution operating outside the United States,” as it is used in Section 311, for the purposes of the Proposed Rule.  FinCEN explains that this term is not defined in Section 311 or elsewhere in the BSA, and proposes to define it to cover “any business or agency operating, in whole or in part, outside of the United States that engages in any activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any financial institution, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2), engages.”  Although the special measure FinCEN is proposing targets a “class of transactions,” FinCEN often uses special measures, in particular the fifth special measure, to target “foreign financial institutions,” and the broad definition FinCEN proposes for this term could affect what types of institutions FinCEN seeks to target in future special measures against “financial institutions operating outside the United States.”
3. In describing its expectations for the “special due diligence” required by the Proposed Rule, FinCEN says that “[a] covered financial institution would be expected to apply an appropriate screening mechanism to identify a funds transfer order that on its face listed one or more of the ten Gambling Establishments as the financial institution of the originator or beneficiary or otherwise referenced the Gambling Establishments in a manner detectable under the financial institution’s normal screening mechanisms,” such as those used by covered financial institutions to comply with OFAC sanctions. This suggests a desire by FinCEN to avoid requiring covered financial institutions to create new transaction detection scenarios or systems specifically to detect transactions with the Gambling Establishments.
4. FinCEN notes that an affiliate of the Sinaloa Cartel provided the criminal organization that controls the Gambling Establishments with “30 bank accounts associated with Mexico-based businesses to receive cash deposits in furtherance of their money laundering activities,” at “unidentified financial institutions.”  Covered financial institutions that identify transactions involving the Gambling Establishments may want to consider heightened diligence for Mexican businesses that have received money from these entities.
5. Treasury now appears to be coordinating more closely with the Mexican government on financial institution designations.  In June 2025, FinCEN issued orders pursuant to the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and FEND Off Fentanyl Act, determining that three Mexican financial institutions are “of primary money laundering concern in connection with illicit opioid trafficking.” There, FinCEN appears not to have coordinated with the Mexican government.  By contrast, in the press release announcing the Proposed Rule, Treasury noted that its actions were “taken in coordination with the Government of Mexico.”  This increased coordination suggests the government may take similar future actions against financial institutions, or they may coordinate more closely to support potential criminal investigations and prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice.

These actions continue to intensify the legal and compliance risks confronting U.S. financial institutions that operate in Mexico or provide correspondent banking services to Mexican or other non-U.S. financial institutions that do.  More broadly, these actions continue the administration’s coordinated effort across multiple U.S. agencies, see here, here, and here, to focus on and combat drug cartels and other transnational criminal organizations. U.S. financial institutions should anticipate additional Treasury actions targeting Mexican entities connected to cartels and transnational criminal organizations, particularly in light of Treasury’s increasing cooperation with the Mexico Government.  Conversely, Mexican financial institutions, and foreign financial institutions that do business with Mexico should expect increasing scrutiny from U.S. financial institutions, and may be asked to confirm that they do not provide services to the Gambling Establishments or provide other forms of assurance to their U.S. correspondent banks.