In April 2026, the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit introduced its Settlement Agreement Policy. Since then, three settlement agreements have been concluded, bringing the process into practical use.
Settlement agreements do not change the purpose of enforcement. The FIAU’s objective remains to ensure that subject persons meet their anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism obligations. Administrative penalties form part of that work, but they are not the end goal. What matters is that weaknesses are corrected and compliance is achieved and sustained.
A clear route to remediation
A settlement agreement allows the FIAU and an eligible subject person to resolve identified breaches at an earlier stage. It sets out what needs to be corrected and the timeframes for doing so. It can also reduce the uncertainty, time and legal and administrative costs associated with longer proceedings.
For the FIAU, the process brings attention to remediation sooner. An identified weakness remains a concern until it is properly addressed. Settlement can therefore move a case from the determination of breaches to practical corrective action more quickly.
The first published notices show the framework being used in different circumstances. These include breaches identified during a compliance examination and breaches relating to reporting obligations under the Centralised Bank Account Register Regulations. Each case is assessed on its own facts, but each agreement includes a formal commitment to address the matters identified.
Linking the penalty reduction to action
A reduction in the administrative penalty is one of the main features of the process. However, it is closely tied to remediation. The reduction takes account of when the subject person admits the breaches and when it implements, or commits to implement, the required corrective action.
The agreement records the original penalty, the reduced amount and the corrective action to be completed. The reduction linked to remediation is conditional. If the agreed action is not carried out, the reduced portion becomes payable. The benefit is therefore linked directly to the effective and efficient implementation of the necessary remedial actions.
“From an enforcement perspective, the value of settlement lies in linking accountability directly to corrective action. It gives an eligible subject person a clear route to address the weaknesses identified, while allowing the FIAU to focus on the outcome that matters most: effective and lasting compliance.”
Not an automatic option
Settlement is not available as of right and is only available in cases that are eligible under the applicable policy. The FIAU, acting through its Compliance Monitoring Committee, decides whether it may be proposed. The conditions in the policy must be met and settlement must be in the public interest.
The subject person must accept the breaches unconditionally, undertake the agreed corrective action and waive the right to appeal, review or otherwise challenge the FIAU’s determinations. The nature and seriousness of the breaches, and the full and reduced penalty amounts, are not open to negotiation.
Transparency and accountability
Settlement agreements are published in line with the applicable legal and policy requirements. The publication gives information on the breaches, the penalty and the remedial or corrective action agreed. This keeps the process transparent and accountable, while showing the steps being taken to achieve compliance.
The three agreements concluded so far provide an early indication of how the framework can work in practice. Where the conditions are met, settlement offers a firm but practical route towards correcting weaknesses.
The effectiveness of enforcement should not be judged by the value of a penalty alone. It should also be judged by whether controls are strengthened, weaknesses are addressed and compliance is sustained. By linking an enforcement outcome to clear remedial action, settlement agreements support that objective.