What This Means for Advisers:

  • FinCEN has now adopted its previously‑proposed two‑year delay in the effective date for the investment adviser AML rule (including the requirements to establish AML programs and file SARs) until January 1, 2028.
  • FinCEN also reaffirmed its intent to use this period to further review and tailor the rule, and it acknowledged the need to coordinate its review with the implementation of other interrelated rules, including the investment adviser CIP rule.
  • Advisers can rely on having an additional two years to prepare for compliance but should continue to monitor for additional proposals and other commentary from FinCEN that could affect the scope of their future obligations.

The Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has adopted a two‑year delay of the effective date for the investment adviser anti‑money laundering (AML) rule adopted in 2024, moving that date to January 1, 2028. FinCEN proposed the delay in September 2025 and, at that time, flagged that it might revisit elements of the 2024 rule during the extended timeline. In the final rule, FinCEN has confirmed both the delay and its continuing intent to tailor the rule’s scope.

Recap: The 2024 Investment Adviser AML Rule

The 2024 investment adviser AML rule, adopted under the prior administration, was a landmark development for the industry. As adopted, the rule formally defined certain registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers as “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act. As a result, the rule requires covered investment adviser firms to establish AML programs, file suspicious activity reports (SARs) and maintain related records. The rule was finalized in the fall of 2024 and initially provided for an effective date of January 1, 2026.

In July 2025, however, Treasury announced its intention to postpone implementation of the rule for two years while it reconsidered the scope and design of the rule in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In September 2025, FinCEN formally proposed to codify that delay through an amendment to the rule. FinCEN has now adopted that amendment.

What the Amendment Does

With this action, FinCEN has extended the rule’s effective date from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2028. The amendment was effective upon publication in the Federal Register. It is narrowly tailored and changes only the effective date. The scope and substance of the rule otherwise remain intact, at least for now, although as noted below FinCEN also reiterated its intent to reconsider and further tailor the rule before it becomes effective.

Public Comments and FinCEN’s Plans

As with most federal agency rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act, FinCEN sought and received public comment on the proposed extension, including comments on topics outside the scope of the date change:

Comments Supporting (and Opposing) the Delay. FinCEN noted that several commenters supported the delay, stating that it would provide investment advisers with the time needed to build AML compliance programs and to address budgetary and planning processes. Other commenters stated that the extension would also allow FinCEN time to provide implementation guidance and to reconsider and tailor the rule to achieve FinCEN’s objectives. FinCEN agreed, noting in particular that the extension would provide additional time for it to review the rule and ensure that the rule is “effectively tailored to the diverse business models and risk profiles of types of firms within the investment adviser sector.”

FinCEN also noted that several commenters opposed the delay, citing continuing risks to the financial system and national security concerns. While FinCEN said it was mindful of these risks, it reiterated the need to balance costs and benefits, which it said necessitated additional time to review and tailor the rule.

Comments Supporting Coordination with SEC Rulemaking. Several commenters urged coordination across interconnected rules so advisers could plan holistically, without uncertainty about timing or potentially conflicting requirements. Commenters in particular cited the jointly proposed FinCEN/SEC investment adviser customer identification program (CIP) rulemaking. In response, FinCEN stated that it intends to consider these timing issues during the rulemaking process for any future adviser‑related rules.

Comments Requesting Other Guidance. Certain commenters also requested that FinCEN provide clarity and guidance on the AML rule, identifying several topics, including application of the Section 312 special due diligence requirements, sharing of SAR filings among affiliates and permitted Section 314(b) information sharing. While FinCEN noted these requests, it declined to address them, explaining that they were outside the narrow scope of the amendment.

What Advisers Should Do Now

  • With two more years to go, investment advisers should recalibrate their implementation timelines.
  • At the same time, advisers should preserve momentum on foundational elements that are less likely to change materially, such as risk assessment frameworks, reporting lines and internal governance and responsibilities.
  • Advisers should also continue to monitor any proposals or guidance as they emerge relating to the investment adviser AML rule and FinCEN’s ongoing coordination with the SEC on the investment adviser CIP rulemaking, and consider the impact on internal project plans.
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Seetha Ramachandran Seetha Ramachandran

Seetha Ramachandran is a partner in the Litigation Department, and a member of the White Collar and Asset Management Litigation practices. An experienced trial and appellate lawyer, Seetha has conducted 10 criminal jury trials, argued 10 appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals…

Seetha Ramachandran is a partner in the Litigation Department, and a member of the White Collar and Asset Management Litigation practices. An experienced trial and appellate lawyer, Seetha has conducted 10 criminal jury trials, argued 10 appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and handled ancillary civil proceedings in forfeiture cases.

Seetha is a leading expert in anti-money laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act, economic sanctions and asset forfeiture matters. Her practice focuses on white collar and regulatory enforcement defense, internal investigations, and compliance counseling. She represents banks, broker dealers, hedge funds, private equity funds, online payment companies, and individual executives and officers in high stakes and sensitive matters. Seetha has deep experience representing institutions and individuals in financial penalty phase of criminal and regulatory matters, and is often retained to litigate forfeiture and restitution claims on behalf of victims and third parties in criminal cases, as well as handling these issues for individual defendants.

Seetha served as a federal prosecutor for nearly 10 years, including as Deputy Chief in the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS), Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice. She was the first head of DOJ’s Money Laundering & Bank Integrity Unit, where she supervised DOJ’s first major AML prosecutions, and oversaw all of the Criminal Division’s AML cases. In that role, Seetha coordinated closely with state and federal banking regulators, including FinCEN, the OCC and the New York State Department of Financial Services, giving her deep experience with how these agencies work together, especially in matters involving civil and criminal liability. Her work developing and charging criminal cases under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) formed the model for AML enforcement that regulators and prosecutors follow today.

Seetha also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for nearly six years, in the Complex Frauds, Major Crimes and Asset Forfeiture units where she investigated and prosecuted white-collar cases involving a wide range of financial crimes, including bank fraud, mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, money laundering, stolen art and cultural property, and civil and criminal forfeiture cases.

Seetha is a frequent speaker and prolific author on topics including enforcement trends in the financial services industry, OFAC sanctions, effective AML programs and asset forfeiture.

Photo of Nathan Schuur Nathan Schuur

Nathan Schuur is a partner in the firm’s Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He counsels clients on regulatory and compliance matters related to fund formation across all asset classes.

Nate’s practice focuses on regulatory issues arising under the…

Nathan Schuur is a partner in the firm’s Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He counsels clients on regulatory and compliance matters related to fund formation across all asset classes.

Nate’s practice focuses on regulatory issues arising under the Advisers Act and Investment Company Act. He advises on regulations surrounding the structuring and operation of funds, including marketing issues, SEC exams, adviser M&A, GP stake sales, continuation funds and stapled transactions. Nate provides legal advice and guidance on a wide range of matters involving the regulation of investment companies, investment advisers, and related entities such as BDCs and ERAs.

Before joining Proskauer, Nate spent several years at the Securities and Exchange Commission. During his time at the SEC, he served as counsel to a Commissioner, where he provided legal and policy advice on rulemaking, enforcement, litigation, and other matters, with a special focus on investment management issues. He also served as senior counsel in the Division of Investment Management. Prior to his SEC tenure, Nate practiced in the funds and regulatory teams of two top law firms. This combination of experience in private practice and at the senior levels of a regulator provides him with valuable perspective in helping funds and advisers navigate complex regulatory requirements and assess risk.

Photo of Robert Sutton Robert Sutton

Robert Sutton is a partner of the Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He is a seasoned practitioner with over 20 years of experience counseling managers and advisers of private funds on regulatory matters, as well as regulatory issues…

Robert Sutton is a partner of the Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He is a seasoned practitioner with over 20 years of experience counseling managers and advisers of private funds on regulatory matters, as well as regulatory issues related to the formation and operation of private equity, credit, real estate, infrastructure, hedge and other private funds.

Rob has a deep knowledge of the market practice of asset managers and in particular, as it relates to Advisers Act-related issues. From some of the largest and most sophisticated firms in the global asset management industry to start-ups and mid-sized firms, Rob’s experience includes a wide spectrum of funds and asset classes across their life cycles. Rob regularly advises on matters in connection with: U.S. investment adviser registration and regulation; Advisers Act and other U.S. securities law issues relating to the formation, marketing and offering of private funds; Identifying and managing conflicts of interest, and addressing related Advisers Act risks, SEC examinations, and exam readiness preparation; Design and implementation of investment adviser compliance policies and procedures; U.S. regulatory issues relating to purchases and sales of investment advisory businesses (minority stake and control stake transactions, buy-side and sell-side representations); Advisers Act and other U.S. regulatory issues relating to private fund restructurings and recapitalizations, strip sales, continuation fund formations and similar transactions; Advisers Act issues relating to the formation of SPACs by investment advisers; and, Investment Company Act status analyses of private fund structures, investment transaction structures and other non-registered investment company structures.

Rob has been recognized by his clients and peers for his extraordinary work, gaining various accolades including mentions in preeminent directories such as The Legal 500.  He is also very active within the private funds industry, contributing to numerous publications and collaborating on several speaking engagements.