FinCEN’s Minnesota GTO: What do banks and credit unions need to know?

FinCEN’s Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) for Minnesota — issued January 8, 2026 — adds a temporary but impactful set of transactional due diligence and reporting requirements for international funds transfers. It applies to banks, credit unions and money transmitters with an office in Hennepin or Ramsey County and reflects the government’s response to extensive fraud involving public benefits programs in the state.

The order is active February 12 through August 10, 2026, and requires ongoing reporting to FinCEN (the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) for certain outgoing international transfers of $3,000 or more. Keep reading to learn more about how affected banks and credit unions should respond.

Who is covered by the January 8, 2026, FinCEN GTO?

Only banks and credit unions with a physical presence in Hennepin or Ramsey County, Minnesota, are covered by the GTO (money transmitters are also affected, but not discussed here). For covered banks and credit unions, the GTO applies when a transaction meets all of the following conditions:

• The institution is the originating financial institution.
•  The transaction requires recordkeeping under the BSA travel rule (i.e. $3,000 or more).
• The originator’s provided address is in either Hennepin or Ramsey County.
• The transaction involves a beneficiary or beneficiary bank outside the United States.

Two categories of originators are excluded: 1) public companies listed on an SEC-regulated exchange and 2) institutions already subject to BSA/AML program requirements.

What does the FinCEN GTO require?

The GTO goes beyond standard recordkeeping. Banks and credit unions must collect and report several data elements regardless of whether they are required by current funds transfer recordkeeping regulations. And a few of the fields that are conditional by regulation are now mandated:

• In particular, covered institutions must now obtain the beneficiary’s date of birth, phone number and email address (See Table 1 for additional details).
• Further, there are two added questions to determine whether government-funded payments are involved and whether the originator has any ownership interest in related entities.
• FinCEN allows institutions to rely on originator-provided information unless the bank has reason to question it. This is an important operational nuance: reliance is permitted, but not blind reliance.

Table 1: Wire data impacted by the Minnesota GTO

Table 1 - Wire data impacted by GTO

What operational changes do you need to make to comply with the GTO?

Covered banks and credit unions will need to make coordinated changes across forms, systems, and training. Key regulatory compliance changes include:

Forms

Existing wire forms — paper or digital — likely do not capture some required fields. You’ll need to add fields for beneficiary contact details and the government funds questions. Smaller institutions may rely on expanded paper supplements; larger institutions will need vendor development for digital prompts.

Systems

Wire platforms will need to be assessed for their ability to collect and store all required fields. While they may have fields for beneficiary DOB, phone, and email, they most certainly will not have any pre-configured fields for the two government funds questions. Plan for custom fields and ensure they map cleanly to FinCEN’s CSV specifications.

Communications

A brief client notice goes a long way — particularly for customers who routinely originate international wires. Branch teams should also have a simple explainer to reference when customers ask why additional details are required.

Training

Frontline employees must be comfortable identifying in-scope wires, collecting the new fields, and recognizing when a customer statement conflicts with observable facts. Back-office operational teams will need clarity on the per-transaction requirements, and BSA personnel will need to train on the monthly submission process.

What are the reporting requirements and file mechanics here?

Reports must be submitted through the FinCEN FI Portal as CSV files, using the exact template and data dictionary published by FinCEN. File size, formatting, and naming conventions are strictly defined and enforced. Reports need to be submitted by the end of the month after the transaction (e.g., February’s transactions are due at the end of March).

Ideally, you should implement automated processes with upfront dynamic electronic forms that collect the requisite data when needed, store neatly within wire platforms and generate complete and accurate extracts that map perfectly to FinCEN’s specifications. However, given the condensed time frame to implement the data collection necessary to comply with FinCEN’s order, many banks and credit unions will lean towards low-tech solutions, such as ad-hoc forms, callback procedures and manually entered transaction logs.

How do you handle refusals and misrepresentations?

What do you do if a customer refuses to provide or does not know the answer to the newly required questions — or lies?

Be aware that the GTO establishes clear penalties for willful violations

While FinCEN has not explicitly addressed these concerns within the Federal Register notice of the GTO nor within their subsequent FAQs, the order itself sets out clear civil penalties for willful violations, which can range from $71,545 to $286,184, per violation (i.e., each transaction). Willful violations can also result in criminal penalties of a $250,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment.

And considering that any GTO-ordered report is codified just like any other BSA record or report, there could be further enforcement implications from federal banking regulators for violating the order. So even in the absence of an explicit technical requirement to obtain the information prior to the completion of the transaction, as with CTRs, the message is clear: The most sound approach is to require the information before the wire gets approved and to reject the wire request if it’s not provided.

Document SAR determinations

Further, depending on the nature of the refusal and the amount of the requested transaction, it would be prudent to document a “SAR vs. no SAR” determination. The federal structuring statute (31 USC 5324(a)(1)) is not limited just to CTRs; rather, it can involve any instance where a subject causes or attempts to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required… by an order issued under section 5326 [the statute authorizing Geographic Targeting Orders].

This is not to suggest a refusal alone should automatically result in a SAR filing. However, it does warrant consideration and an evaluation of the customer’s other activities.

Update customer information if you know it’s inaccurate

When it comes to misrepresentation, particularly as it pertains to government benefits data, do you submit the customer’s response, or do you change it based on what you know to be accurate? FinCEN addressed this concern in Question #7 of their FAQ:

•  Institutions can depend on customers’ statements, but it’s not a requirement.
• This only applies if you lack any reason to question the accuracy of their responses.
• If you are concerned by a customer’s response or find conflicting information after processing the wire, update your GTO wire report with accurate information and consider filing a SAR.

To put it succinctly: If they’re lying, you’re not relying.

Monitoring expectations beneath the surface

FinCEN’s concurrent advisory highlights red flags tied to fraud involving public benefits programs — especially child nutrition programs — and makes clear that banks and credit unions should be alert to indicators that contradict customer responses. Given FinCEN’s raising of awareness of common typologies, those red flags should be incorporated into monitoring efforts.

Two practical approaches can help:

Transaction-based analysis

Scan incoming ACH credits for federal, state and local government descriptors. Compare those results to the outgoing international wires requiring reporting. If a customer certifies “no government funds” but shows recurring government-linked deposits, that’s a signal to investigate further.

While not an exhaustive list, a few keywords to look for are noted below in Table 2:

Table 2: Transaction keywords to watch for

Customer risk reviews

Identify clients operating under applicable industry codes (e.g., NAICS 6244: Child Day Care Services) and conduct targeted reviews to identify potential ties to benefit programs and misuse of funds. These assessments can be brief but effective in identifying mismatches between customer representations and transaction behavior and can help discern if there’s a need for a comprehensive investigation.

Further, cursory checks can also function as a “feedback loop” to enhance keyword-based transaction analyses by identifying additional terms to include.

What should you do next?

Implementing the GTO requires cross-functional alignment inside your financial institution. Gather a small internal working group — BSA/AML, wire operations, IT/data, and branch leadership — to tackle priorities like:

• Finalizing updated data‑collection points
• Testing the required CSV format in FinCEN’s portal
• Reinforcing reliance vs verification expectations‑vs‑verification expectations
• Coordinating timely ongoing reporting

Leverage advisory support

You should also consider speaking with a third-party regulatory and compliance advisor to give your team additional support in understanding and implementing necessary changes. An advisor can help guide your internal working group, offer insight into the nuances of shifting compliance rules and assess your compliance practices with an eye towards satisfying federal regulators.

Given the enforcement focus around these fraud typologies, your team should treat the GTO not as a paperwork exercise but as a structured opportunity to tighten detection in a known risk area.

How Wipfli can help

We advise financial institutions on regulatory risk and compliance. Let’s talk about how we can help strengthen your institution. Start a conversation.

Read more

• How should financial institutions respond to the federal compliance pullback?
• Adverse action notice requirements and how you can avoid risk
• Is your institution ready for COPPA’s 2026 changes to better protect children’s online privacy?