FinTech and Cross-Border Payments: Risk of AML Enforcement and Civil Asset Forfeiture

Financial Technology (FinTech) has changed the way money moves across borders. Payments that once took days through traditional banks can now be executed almost instantly using digital platforms, payment processors, online wallets, and crypto-adjacent tools. For companies engaged in international commercial transactions, that speed can be a competitive advantage.

But there is a side of FinTech that often gets less attention, until something goes wrong. As regulators and enforcement agencies adapt to modern payment systems, FinTech is increasingly viewed not just as innovation, but as a compliance and enforcement risk. When regulatory failures occur, the consequences can extend beyond fines or audits and into civil asset forfeiture, account seizures, and prolonged investigations.

In this article, we discuss how FinTech is reshaping cross-border payments in international commercial transactions, and why that shift is increasing regulatory scrutiny and enforcement risk. As companies rely more on digital payment platforms and non-bank processors, compliance failures can quickly lead to investigations, account freezes, and civil asset forfeiture.

Why FinTech Matters in Cross-Border and International Commercial Transactions

Cross-border payments today rarely move through a single traditional bank. Instead, they may pass through multiple FinTech intermediaries, non-bank payment processors, or digital asset platforms. Each layer introduces regulatory obligations, particularly under U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) laws.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), many FinTech platforms qualify as money services businesses and must comply with customer identification, transaction monitoring, recordkeeping, and suspicious activity reporting requirements. These obligations apply regardless of whether the transaction involves goods, services, or purely financial activity.

For companies operating internationally, this creates a critical reality: how you move money is

just as important as why you move it.

Common FinTech Compliance Failures Under AML, BSA, and Sanctions Laws

Once regulators identify potential BSA or AML violations, matters can escalate quickly. What starts as a compliance review can become a formal investigation involving multiple agencies, including FinCEN, DOJ, OFAC, and, in some cases, customs and trade authorities.

At that stage, the focus often shifts from policy failures to analysis of cross-border payment flows, like where funds came from, how they moved, who controlled them, and whether they bypassed required safeguards. In cross-border transactions, that analysis becomes even more central, particularly when payments intersect with sanctions regimes, trade enforcement, or foreign counterparties.

This is where civil asset forfeiture frequently enters the conversation. Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize funds alleged to be connected to certain violations, even when no criminal charges are filed. In the FinTech context, that can mean freezing or seizing bank accounts, payment balances, escrow funds, or digital wallets tied to questioned transactions.

Under U.S. law, property “involved in a transaction or attempted transaction” in violation of federal statutes can be subject to civil forfeiture and subsequent seizure by the Attorney General or other authorized officers.

Courts have long recognized that AML, BSA, and financial reporting failures can support forfeiture actions, especially where transactions are structured in ways that evade regulatory oversight. As payment systems become more complex and decentralized, enforcement agencies increasingly rely on transaction data generated by FinTech platforms to trace funds and build forfeiture cases.

For businesses involved in international trade, this creates a significant risk. Even when goods are not seized, the money used to pay for them may be. As agencies coordinate more closely, payment records and FinTech transaction data increasingly become central evidence in enforcement actions. For companies, this means that financial compliance can no longer be viewed as separate from trade compliance or enforcement risk.

Key Takeaways for Businesses Using FinTech in International Transactions

FinTech is now a permanent feature of international commercial transactions. But as digital payment systems reshape global trade, they also reshape how regulators and enforcement agencies approach compliance, investigations, and asset forfeiture.

For businesses operating across borders, understanding how FinTech intersects with AML obligations, enforcement authority, and civil asset forfeiture is no longer optional. The companies that recognize this early, and align their compliance and risk strategies accordingly, are far better positioned to avoid costly disputes, frozen funds, and enforcement actions that can derail operations.