Canada’s fragmented approach to tackling financial crime has drawn sustained criticism for years. Responsibility for investigating money laundering, fraud, and sanctions offences has historically been scattered across federal agencies and provincial bodies, with no single authority equipped to handle the most serious and complex cases.
According to Alessa,Bill C-29, the Financial Crimes Agency Act, is designed to close that gap once and for all.
Alessa recently detailed how Canada is introducing a law to establish the Financial Crimes Agency.
Introduced in the House of Commons on 27 April 2026, the legislation proposes the creation of a new standalone federal law enforcement body — one with a tightly focused mandate, broad investigative powers, and explicit authority over digital assets and cross-border financial crime. For compliance professionals at Canadian financial institutions, FinTechs, and money services businesses, the bill represents a material shift in the enforcement landscape.
The enforcement gap Bill C-29 seeks to close
Canada has faced persistent criticism over its relatively low rates of investigation, prosecution, and asset recovery in major financial crime cases. The 2019 Cullen Commission in British Columbia, which examined money laundering in casinos and real estate, laid bare just how difficult it was for authorities to coordinate across jurisdictions when financial flows were sufficiently complex.
The federal government’s response came in incremental steps before arriving at the Financial Crimes Agency (FCA) proposal. Bill C-12, which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2026, amended 14 statutes — including significant changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) — raising maximum administrative and criminal penalties and introducing new information-sharing authority for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC).
The government also launched the Integrated Money Laundering Intelligence Partnership (IMLIP) in 2025, a forum facilitating information exchange between law enforcement and major financial institutions without altering existing privacy obligations.
Bill C-29 is the most consequential structural step in that sequence. Rather than layering new powers onto existing bodies, it creates a purpose-built agency designed specifically to investigate financial crime at scale.
What the Financial Crimes Agency Act proposes
The FCA’s statutory mandate is to investigate financial crimes and contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime, with a focus on matters deemed serious and complex. The Commissioner will hold authority to establish criteria defining which cases cross that threshold — a degree of operational precision that the current framework lacks entirely.
The legislation defines “financial crime” broadly, covering any offence under a federal act involving financial assets, including digital assets, as well as money laundering, proceeds of crime, and any conduct that adversely affects or threatens the security or integrity of Canada’s economy, its financial system, or any domestic financial market. The scope additionally encompasses designated offences under the Criminal Code from which proceeds of crime are derived, and offences under the PCMLTFA.
On governance, the FCA will operate under the Minister of Finance, who may issue public policy or strategic directions to the Commissioner, all of which must be disclosed. The Commissioner, appointed by the Governor in Council for an initial term of up to five years, renewable to a maximum of ten, holds the rank and powers of a deputy head of a department.
Critically, the Commissioner will carry the status of a peace officer throughout Canada. Agency employees may be designated either as investigations officers, public officers under the Criminal Code, or as police officers, carrying full peace officer status. This gives the FCA meaningful enforcement authority, a significant departure from FINTRAC’s purely administrative role.
Investigations may be launched on the Commissioner’s own initiative, or at the request of, or in collaboration with, any law enforcement agency or public body inside or outside Canada. The legislation also requires the FCA Commissioner and the RCMP Commissioner to enter into a formal arrangement for the RCMP to provide services and assistance as the agency builds its operational capacity.
The Attorney General of Canada holds concurrent authority to conduct proceedings in respect of financial crimes investigated under the Act. Where a fiat is issued, based on factors such as whether an offence is transnational, spans more than one province, or involves the national interest, federal jurisdiction takes precedence, without displacing provincial Attorneys General in cases that do not meet those thresholds.
What this means for compliance teams
The creation of a dedicated federal agency with investigative authority, peace officer powers, and an explicit mandate to pursue serious and complex financial crime materially changes the risk calculus for any Canadian institution with exposure to money laundering, fraud, or sanctions vulnerabilities.
Several practical implications follow directly from the bill’s provisions. Correspondent and counterparty due diligence will face greater scrutiny, as the FCA’s authority over cross-border flows and digital assets means institutions with international payment exposure should expect heightened attention to their FINTRAC reporting obligations and the quality of onboarding documentation.
Transaction monitoring programmes must also meet a higher evidentiary standard. When investigations escalate to a dedicated law enforcement agency, the quality of alerts, dispositions, and audit trails becomes consequential. Compliance teams relying on automated transaction monitoring will benefit from systems that generate clear, investigation-ready documentation, not simply alert volumes.
AML and fraud functions are also converging in the regulatory field of view. The FCA’s mandate spans money laundering, fraud, and sanctions, the same combination that FRAML frameworks address operationally. Institutions treating these as separate programmes face a structural disadvantage when enforcement examines the full pattern of financial crime activity rather than its individual components.
The bill’s explicit inclusion of digital assets within the definition of financial crime is equally significant. Institutions that have not yet mapped their digital asset risk, or built screening and monitoring controls around it, should treat this legislation as a prompt to do so without delay.
An inflection point for Canadian financial institutions
Canada’s financial crime enforcement environment is becoming more coordinated and more consequential. The FCA does not replace FINTRAC’s reporting and analytical role — it adds an investigative layer with real enforcement authority above it.
Institutions that have deferred investment in their AML compliance programmes should treat the tabling of Bill C-29 as a clear signal that the gap between regulatory expectation and enforcement action is narrowing. Filing the right reports is no longer sufficient as a posture. A well-designed compliance programme, one that generates defensible decisions at every stage, from onboarding through transaction monitoring to case closure, is what will withstand scrutiny when a dedicated federal agency comes looking.
Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global
