Home
/ Insights
/ Articles
/ Corporate Impact of FinCEN’s Recent Orders and FTO Designations in Mexico

Corporate Impact of FinCEN’s Recent Orders and FTO Designations in Mexico

How To Strategically Navigate the Issue of FTO Designations in Mexico

On June 25, the United States’ Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued unprecedented orders identifying three Mexican financial institutions – CI Banco, Intercam, and Vector – as “primary money laundering concerns” in connection with the trafficking of fentanyl and other opioids.¹ Within 21 days of the associated measures being published in the U.S. Federal Register, U.S. financial institutions will be forbidden from engaging in certain transmittal of funds with the three organizations.²

Mexican regulators, payment processors, and real estate investors have responded well ahead of the deadline, with more still to come. Mexico’s Ministry of Finance temporarily took over management of all three institutions to protect the rights of depositors and other clients.^3,4 Visa cancelled all international transactions with debit and credit cards issued by CI Banco.⁵ Leading Mexican real estate investment trusts (“FIBRAs”) moved to sever ties with CI Banco,⁶ an important player in fiduciary services. Credit rating agencies either severely downgraded or withdrew ratings from the three entities.⁷

The impact of FinCEN’s measure is generally not seen as a matter of systemic concern, but speculation is widespread on potential ripple effects across subsectors or specific types of financial institutions. There is also concern that Mexico could be on its way to being included in the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) so-called “grey list”,⁸ in connection with its ongoing Mutual Evaluation process, increasing international regulatory oversight of all entities operating in the country. Whether these specific concerns materialize or not, scrutiny on Mexico from stakeholders has continued to rise since the designation of six drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTO”).⁹

Category-Defining Measures

The simultaneous imposition of measures to three Mexican financial institutions breaks ground in many ways. New authorities granted to the U.S. Treasury Department by the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act were invoked. These represent a significant evolution from traditional action under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which primarily relied on general Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) concerns.

More relevant to Mexico, no financial institution in the country had ever been identified as a primary money laundering concern. Further, there seem to be no comparable precedents of U.S. financial. authorities acting against several financial institutions at the same time – particularly in the context of a large and complex economy as Mexico. FinCEN explicitly stated for each individual measure that the impact would not be systemic, but the aggregate effect of all three takes the overall move into uncharted territory.¹⁰

The decision does not appear to be a one-off, but part of a cascade of consequences of a recent shift in investigative and enforcement priorities. The direct investigative precedent to these actions is the Trend Analysis on Trends in Fentanyl-Related Illicit Financial Flows, published by FinCEN on April 9, 2025. In turn, this builds on the previous collaborative efforts carried out by FinCEN, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (“FINTRAC”) and the Financial Intelligence Unit of Mexico (“UIF”) to develop and enhance money laundering indicators related to drug trafficking. Work on trends, typologies and indicators has evolved into preventive measures, and should be expected to lead to legal action, in which the authorities are sure to seek prosecutions, sentencing, and asset recovery.

This evolution reflects broader trends in United States’ financial statecraft, where economic tools increasingly serve as primary instruments of national security policy, even when targeting institutions in allied countries – in this case, no less than one of the leading partners to the U.S. and a major destination of U.S. investment. The precedent shows that United States Government is willing to continue expanding its action abroad to address threats deemed critical to national and economic security – including the fentanyl crisis. Just a day after FinCEN’s action, the Department of State announced a New Visa Restriction Policy to Deter and Dismantle Flow of Fentanyl and Other Illicit Drugs into United States.

A Significant, Even If Not Systemic, Approach

While media coverage has focused on specific transactions identified by FinCEN that are alleged to be related to illicit actors and purposes, the measures were not imposed on isolated operations but on well-defined risk assessments.¹¹ FinCEN’s Section 311 authority has evolved into a comprehensive tool for addressing diverse illicit finance threats, well beyond the Terrorist Financing (“TF”) concept as it was conceived in the aftermath of 9/11.

Risks indicators draw from finance intelligence tools and statistics, including Suspicious Activity Reports and Suspicious Transactions Reports, from both the United States and Mexico. In two of the orders, FinCEN explicitly mentioned an asset-weighted risk ranking.¹² The very existence of this ranking suggests that, at a minimum, entire subsets of the financial institutions operating in Mexico are being scrutinized.

For Adjacent Corporates and Other Financial Institutions, Not Responding Is “Not” a Response

Financial institutions, companies and businesses must act proactively rather than reactively to minimize exposure and ensure operational resilience in the face of increased – and increasing – pressure. No matter the size, sector or territorial deployment of corporates operating in Mexico, they must implement comprehensive and clearly defined measures to reduce exposure to financial risks, while retaining flexibility to adapt to evolving regulatory and geopolitical landscapes.

An immediate first strategic response is to identify, assess and understand risks related to Money Laundering (“ML”) and the fentanyl and synthetic opioid economy, and to explicitly align corporate policies to appropriate risk tolerance levels. This will allow for the development and implementation of a comprehensive and consistent framework that effectively prevents and mitigates risks related to ML and the fentanyl and synthetic opioid economy.

A third step will imply assessing residual risks and implementing a risk-based approach related to high-risk situations. Companies need to remain alert, flexible and ready to respond to further changes in their operating context.

How FTI Consulting Can Help

FTOs and SDGTs designations are already having severe impacts at all levels and across sectors, yet mid and long-term consequences remain in flux. The legal and reputational risks for companies that find themselves subject of an investigation are clear, but risk also exist for companies that are not investigated themselves but have commercial or investment relationships with those that do. If not systemic, preventive action must be systematic.

Proactively seeking clarity is important. Through an expedited analysis of the potential exposure to the specific risk factors that triggered recent enforcement actions, and those that could follow, organizations can better understand the likelihood of being impacted and the consequences this could carry. This enables the adoption of tailored strategies to address sector-specific vulnerabilities in the current context via adequate and proportionate mitigation measures.

Concrete variables considered by FinCEN, FINTRAC and UIF when analyzing risk must be considered by the private sector when looking at their own operations and exposure. These include the following:

Products and services
Delivery channels
Geographical location
New developments and technologies
Clients and business relationships
Patterns of activity or transactions
Activities of foreign and domestic affiliates
Third-party payments
Sector/industry profile
Typologies and behavior
Trade-based Money Laundering Risk
Internal controls

A comprehensive exposure-based analysis identifies immediate and emerging risks, sector-specific threats and vulnerabilities, and key red flags. It leads to the design or enhancement of a crisis management framework to help organizations proactively address current and future challenges.

Conducting this effort through a third-party expert, under direction of counsel can be critical in meeting the evolving expectations of corporate stakeholders – from investors, lenders and credit rating agencies to authorities and regulators. An in-depth, systematic analysis of this type is, in itself, an important first step in addressing the current heightened risk environment.

Other Trends To Watch

Public positions and enforcement actions by U.S., Mexican, and international authorities will continue to reveal risk factors, as the fentanyl economy shifts. Monitoring other investigative strands – such as the priorities defined by U.S. authorities around crude oil and fuels smuggling, or “huachicol” – can help structure other proactive risk mitigation efforts, as relevant to individual companies or entire sectors. One thing is patently clear: the effort from U.S. authorities for the “total elimination of cartels” will not stop soon – certainly not at this step.

Footnotes:

1: “Treasury Issues Historic Orders under Powerful New Authority to Counter Fentanyl”, U.S. Department of the Treasury (2025, June 25).

2: “Treasury Issues Historic Orders under Powerful New Authority to Counter Fentanyl”, U.S. Department of the Treasury (2025, June 25).

3: “Comunicado No. 25 La Junta de Gobierno de la CNBV decretó la intervención gerencial temporal de CI Banco, S.A. e Intercam Banco, S.A.”, Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público (2025, June 26).

4: “Comunicado No. 14 La Junta de Gobierno de la CNBV decretó la intervención gerencial temporal de Vector Casa de Bolsa, S.A. de C.V.”, Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, (2025, June 26).

5: “Comunicado”, CI Banco (2025, June 30).

6: “Fibra Inn anuncia la determinación del Comité Técnico para sustituir a su Fiduciario Emisor”, Fibra Inn, (2025, June 27).

7: “Fitch Baja Calificación de Tres Entidades por Preocupaciones en Prevención de Lavado de Dinero”, Fitch Ratings, (2025, June 27),

8: “México, en peligro de llegar a la lista gris del GAFI, advierten”, El Universal, (2025, June 30).

9: “Designation of international cartels”, U.S. Department of State, (2025, February 20).

10: “Treasury Issues Historic Orders under Powerful New Authority to Counter Fentanyl”, U.S. Department of the Treasury, (2025, June 25).

11: “Imposition of Special Measure Prohibiting Certain Transmittals of Funds Involving CIBanco S.A., Institución De Banca Multiple”, U.S. Federal Register, (2025, June 30). “Imposition of Special Measure Prohibiting Certain Transmittals of Funds Involving Intercam Banco S.A., Institución de Banca Multiple”, (2025, June 30). “Imposition of Special Measure Prohibiting Certain Transmittals of Funds Involving Vector Casa de Bolsa, S.A. de C.V.”, U.S. Federal Register, (2025, June 30).