San Diego, CA — The U.S. government has recently set its sights on smaller cash transactions in an effort to curb illegal activities, particularly along the southwest border. This decision, encapsulated by a new Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), drastically lowers the threshold for mandatory reporting of cash transactions from $10,000 to just $200 in specified areas of California and Texas.
Historically, the $10,000 benchmark held since 1972 aimed at monitoring substantial financial transactions to catch signs of money laundering or funding for illicit activities. FinCEN’s announcement on March 11 marks a significant intensification of surveillance efforts, purportedly to clamp down on the financial activities of Mexico-based cartels.
The change comes with considerable burdens for small business owners like Esperanza Gomez and Arnoldo Gonzalez, Jr., who operate near the U.S.-Mexico border. Their businesses, which cater majorly to individuals without bank accounts, now face the daunting task of documenting nearly every transaction. Each currency transaction report (CTR) requires extensive customer information and takes about 20 minutes to file, adding a significant time burden.
However, the government’s actions do not come without resistance. A U.S. District Judge, Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of the new threshold in California. The legal challenge, heralded by the Institute for Justice, argues the change was implemented without adequate public notice and consideration, thus burdening businesses disproportionately.
This decision is echoed by disputes in Texas, where businesses secured a similar court order against the compliance requirements. Critics argue that the $200 threshold is not only cumbersome but also ineffective, as criminals can easily move their operations to areas beyond the specified ZIP codes.
The legal controversies highlight broader concerns about the erosion of financial privacy over recent decades. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 began the trend of increased financial surveillance, which has progressively tightened. Further amendments and policies, including a previously proposed monitoring of all bank transactions over $600, suggest a trajectory towards more pervasive financial oversight by the government.
Statistical insights from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in December 2024 underscore the inefficacy of such sweeping measures. According to the GAO, adjusting the transaction threshold for inflation to about $72,880 would have reduced necessary CTR filings by at least 90% annually since 2014. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies accessed less than 3% of CTRs filed from 2014 through 2023, highlighting a system struggling under its own weight.
Despite these findings, the government appears persistent in its agenda without significantly addressing the direct impact on small businesses and concerns about privacy intrusion. As the litigations in California and Texas progress, they potentially set the stage for a re-evaluation of the balance between law enforcement needs and individual rights in financial activities.
The ongoing lawsuits are not only legal contests but also battles for the rights of small business operators at the border, reflecting a growing call for a recalibration of regulatory measures that respect both security and privacy.
As the situation develops, the response from small businesses, legal advocates, and policymakers will be crucial in shaping the future landscape of financial reporting requirements. Additionally, public opinion and engagement could play influential roles in addressing the tensions between preventing crime and preserving freedoms.
[float:right;]OpenAI-generated content — The facts, people, and circumstances described in this article were synthesized by OpenAI systems and may be inaccurate. For concerns or corrections, please email [email protected].