Money Laundering and Remittance Act

Full Title:
Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill expands and strengthens federal criminal rules about money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, illegal money services, counterfeiting, and related investigations. It raises some penalties, broadens which activities count as illegal, and requires a Treasury threat analysis and remittances strategy. The goal is to close gaps that could be used to finance terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, and other criminal activity.

  • Main change: Expands criminal coverage and penalties for bulk cash smuggling, unauthorized or illegal money services businesses, and conduct that helps counterfeit U.S. or foreign obligations.
  • Evidence rules changed: Allows prosecutors to meet the $10,000 threshold for a money-transaction offense by using commingled accounts or aggregated small transactions that are closely related.
  • Money services businesses (MSBs): Rewrites the federal MSB law to cover “illegal money services businesses,” widen definitions, require registration, and add higher penalties (including a higher penalty tier for > $1,000,000 in a 12-month period).
  • Investigative tools: Restores or clarifies federal wiretap authority for certain money-reporting and money-laundering offenses and broadens Secret Service investigative authority.
  • Counterfeiting: Adds new crimes for possession of tools or materials that can be used to counterfeit, and criminalizes removal of certain anti-counterfeiting features.
  • Planning and oversight: Requires the Treasury (with DOJ, DHS, and others) to produce a threat and operational analysis about remittances within 1 year and a remittances strategy and implementation plan soon after.
  • What is unclear: The bill text does not include a fiscal note or detailed implementation rules, so how agencies will staff, fund, or enforce these changes is not specified.

What it means for you#

  • Money services businesses and remittance providers:
    • Must meet federal registration and state licensing requirements or risk new federal criminal exposure even if the operator did not know licensing was required.
    • Providers that move or handle over $1,000,000 in 12 months could face higher fines and prison terms.
    • Could face increased scrutiny, investigations, or reporting demands if Treasury and law enforcement implement new steps from the remittances strategy.
  • People who transport cash or bearer instruments:
    • Blank bearer checks that could be filled in by the bearer may be treated as over $10,000 for federal transportation-reporting purposes if the underlying account had or was intended to have more than $10,000.
    • Penalties for bulk cash smuggling increase (longer prison terms and potential higher fines).
  • Individuals who receive or send remittances (including immigrant communities):
    • The bill requires a Treasury analysis and future strategy that could lead to stronger rules or oversight of remittance channels. This could mean new compliance requirements for remittance providers that could affect speed, cost, or availability of informal or small-scale services.
  • People accused of money-laundering or related crimes:
    • Prosecutors may aggregate many smaller transactions or rely on commingled accounts to meet monetary-threshold elements of some money-laundering crimes.
    • Multiple violations that are part of one ongoing scheme can be charged together in a single count.
  • Law enforcement agencies (Treasury, DOJ, DHS, Secret Service, etc.):
    • Receive clearer or expanded authority to investigate MSBs, money laundering, and counterfeiting.
    • Must produce the required threat analysis and remittances strategy and may need additional personnel, technology, or coordination to carry out new tasks.
  • Counterfeit equipment holders and manufacturers:
    • Possession of tools or materials that can be used to counterfeit (with intent to defraud) becomes explicitly criminal. Removal of anti-counterfeiting features is criminalized as a serious felony.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill requires reports and strategy documents from Treasury and consultations with DOJ and DHS. Preparing these will likely require staff time and interagency coordination.
  • Expanded enforcement powers, longer prison terms, and more investigative activity could increase costs for federal law enforcement and the federal prison system, but the bill does not include a cost estimate.
  • The bill could impose compliance costs on MSBs and remittance providers (licensing, registration, recordkeeping, and possibly technology or staffing) but no dollar estimates are provided.
  • The bill increases possible fines; any revenue or offset is not estimated here.

Proponents' View#

(The following summarizes arguments that can be inferred from the bill text and structure.)

  • The bill appears intended to close legal gaps that criminals use to move or hide large sums, including through informal systems and bearer instruments.
  • It could make it easier for prosecutors to prove money-laundering offenses by allowing aggregated transactions or commingled funds to meet monetary thresholds.
  • Strengthening penalties and adding clearer offenses for counterfeit-related tools may deter sophisticated counterfeiting operations.
  • Restoring wiretap authority and clarifying Secret Service roles could improve investigators’ ability to detect and disrupt organized criminal and terrorist financing networks.
  • Requiring a remittances threat analysis and strategy may help the government better target risks while acknowledging lawful remittance uses.

Opponents' View#

(The following are plausible concerns based on the bill’s text and design; the bill text itself does not record public criticism.)

  • One concern is that some provisions broaden criminal liability even where the operator lacks knowledge (for example, penalizing unlicensed operation whether or not the person knew a license was required). This could catch small or informal providers.
  • The expanded definitions and lower thresholds for proving money-laundering elements (aggregation and commingling) may make prosecutions easier but could also raise questions about fairness in borderline cases.
  • Restoring wiretap authority for more offenses could raise privacy and civil-liberty concerns, depending on how it is used.
  • The bill could impose new compliance costs and burdens on legitimate remittance services, including informal channels used by migrants and low-income communities. That could reduce access or increase costs for lawful remittances.
  • The bill does not include a fiscal note, so it is unclear how agencies will pay for added investigations, prosecutions, and implementation of the remittances strategy.