Texas and Colorado have taken a joint enforcement action against a licensed money transmitter after a multistate examination found alleged deficiencies in the company’s anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism program. According to the reported consent order, the action stems from an examination that began in May 2025 and was announced by the Texas Department of Banking on June 22, 2026.
The case adds to a growing trend of coordinated state-level scrutiny of money transmitters, especially where regulators believe compliance controls may not be keeping pace with federal Bank Secrecy Act requirements and state licensing obligations. The consent order also references alleged issues tied to customer-information safeguards under the FTC Safeguards Rule, broadening the enforcement focus beyond AML compliance alone.
Examination Findings
The reported order says the examination identified several areas of concern, including late filing of required federal reports, weaknesses in domestic-agent monitoring, and deficiencies in how prior review findings were addressed. Regulators also said the company did not adequately identify and manage device and software-system inventories required under the FTC Safeguards Rule.
Specifically, the order alleges that required currency transaction reports and reports involving transportation of currency or monetary instruments were not filed on time. It also says independent-review findings and earlier examination concerns had not been fully remediated through periodic testing of the AML/CFT program.
Penalty and Remedies
Without admitting the allegations, the company agreed to pay a $200,000 administrative penalty, which will be divided equally between Texas and Colorado. The reported settlement also requires the company to retain an independent compliance consultant and strengthen its AML/CFT program, monitoring systems, customer due diligence controls, and data-integrity safeguards.
In addition, the company must submit quarterly progress reports for up to two years, giving regulators a continuing window to track remediation efforts. The agreement reflects a supervisory approach that combines monetary penalties with forward-looking compliance commitments.
Why It Matters
The action is significant because it shows how state regulators are using coordinated examinations to enforce AML expectations across money services businesses. For money transmitters, the case is a reminder that regulators are looking not only at suspicious activity detection and reporting, but also at agent oversight, independent testing, and technology-based recordkeeping controls.
It also underscores the importance of aligning internal compliance programs with both federal and state standards. Companies operating in multiple jurisdictions may face heightened exposure if reporting timelines, vendor oversight, or remediation tracking are inconsistent across systems and business units.
Regulatory Context
State banking regulators have increasingly worked together on multistate actions involving payment and money transmission firms. Recent enforcement activity shows that authorities are willing to coordinate settlements where alleged weaknesses raise concerns about money laundering, terrorism financing, or broader financial-crime risk.dob.
For the money transmission industry, that means compliance programs need to be documented, tested, and updated on an ongoing basis. Regulators are likely to continue focusing on high-risk areas such as transaction monitoring, customer identification, agent supervision, and timely regulatory reporting.