Public enforcement research
What FINTRAC enforcement notices show
FINTRAC publishes administrative monetary penalty notices with the entity, cited violations, amount, and transaction status. The examples below organize that public evidence without predicting an outcome for another firm.
Product research, not legal advice.
Source/status reviewed 2026-08-04; recheck before publication. Several cited matters are under appeal, and a public notice is not a criminal conviction or provincial licensing decision.
FINTRAC says notices remain on its public website for five years. Review the current five-year notice list and each detailed notice before relying on a status.
Real-estate brokerage examples
In the public notices reviewed, the real-estate examples below range from $23,100 to $156,750. This is not a typical, average, guaranteed, or predictive range. Several amounts are appealed, and one was varied after a resolved appeal.
These notices concern named real-estate brokerage entities. They are not mortgage-sector transactions and do not show that an individual agent was personally penalized.
| Entity and notice | Notice date | Amount | Violations | Status reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VIP Realty / Royal LePage Integrity | $33,000 imposed and paid | 1 | Paid; transaction closed | |
| RE/MAX Twin City | $24,750 imposed and paid | 1 | Paid; transaction closed | |
| Manor Windsor Realty | $107,250 imposed | 4 | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Century 21 Heritage | $148,912.50 imposed | 1 | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Houston & Associates Realty | $117,975 imposed; varied to $63,987.50 and paid | 5 | Varied after resolved appeal; paid; transaction closed | |
| LeHomes Realty Premier | $149,886 imposed; entity will pay | 6 | Will pay; transaction closed | |
| Pacesetter Marketing | $41,085 imposed; entity will pay | 3 | Will pay; transaction closed | |
| HomeLife New World Realty | $36,135 imposed and paid | 3 | Paid; transaction closed | |
| Les Immeubles Star | $23,100 imposed | 2 | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Royal LePage Village | $36,360 imposed; entity will pay | 4 | Will pay; proceedings ended | |
| Immeubles Jack Sera | $107,250 imposed | 4 | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Jones Lang LaSalle Real Estate Services | $107,827.50 imposed and paid | 6 | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| Right At Home Realty | $57,750 imposed and paid | 3 | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| RE/MAX Masters Realty | $83,655 imposed and paid | 5 | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| Global West Realty | $132,000 imposed | 5 | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| RE/MAX Kelowna | $156,750 imposed | 1 | Appealed to Federal Court |
Cross-sector scale context
Million-dollar public AMPs also appear in banking, casino, and money-services-business notices. These examples are not mortgage or real-estate precedents. They show only that the public program operates across sectors and that appeal or payment status matters when reading an amount.
| Entity and notice | Sector | Notice date | Amount | Public violations | Status reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xeltox Enterprises / Cryptomus | Money-services business | $176,960,190 imposed | 2,593 contraventions across 6 violation types | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Peken Global / KuCoin | Foreign money-services business | $19,552,000 imposed | 3 violations | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Toronto-Dominion Bank | Bank | $9,185,000 imposed and paid | 5 violations | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| Royal Bank of Canada | Bank | $7,475,000 imposed and paid | 3 violations | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| Binance Holdings | Foreign money-services business | $6,002,000 imposed | 2 violations | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| Exchange Bank of Canada | Bank | $2,457,750 imposed; varied to $1,027,975 | 3 violations | Varied after resolved appeal; transaction closed | |
| Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce | Bank | $1,329,150 imposed and paid | 2 violations | Paid; proceedings ended | |
| Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority | Casino | $1,175,000 imposed | 3 violations | Appealed to Federal Court | |
| British Columbia Lottery Corporation | Casino | $1,075,000 imposed | 3 violations | Appealed to Federal Court |
Common categories in the reviewed notices
These categories summarize cited deficiencies; they do not replace the legislation, FINTRAC guidance, or a firm's fact-specific legal analysis.
- Compliance-program governance
Detailed notices cite gaps involving the responsible compliance officer, written and current policies, senior-officer approval, and the firm-level Risk Assessment.
Examples: LeHomes Realty Premier notice; Manor Windsor Realty notice; RE/MAX Twin City notice
- Training and effectiveness review
FINTRAC notices cite incomplete ongoing training programs, missing delivery evidence, and failure to carry out and document the prescribed two-year effectiveness review.
Examples: VIP Realty notice; Houston & Associates Realty notice; Jones Lang LaSalle notice
- KYC and recordkeeping completeness
Cited deficiencies include incomplete client-identification details, missing receipt-of-funds information, and records that omitted prescribed account, occupation, or identity-verification fields.
Examples: LeHomes Realty Premier notice; Houston & Associates Realty notice; Jones Lang LaSalle notice
- Relationships and required determinations
Notices cite policies that did not adequately address business relationships, ongoing monitoring, beneficial ownership, PEP/HIO and third-party determinations, or ministerial directives.
Examples: Pacesetter Marketing notice; Jones Lang LaSalle notice
- Suspicious transaction reporting and human RGS decisions
Reviewed notices cite failures to submit suspicious transaction reports where FINTRAC determined that reasonable grounds to suspect were present. Indicators inform, but do not replace, the reporting entity's authorized human decision.
Examples: LeHomes Realty Premier notice; Century 21 Heritage notice; RE/MAX Kelowna notice
How to read the status
Imposedis the amount in FINTRAC's notice of violation. It does not by itself tell you whether the entity paid, appealed, or later obtained a varied amount.
Paid or closed records the resolution stated in the public list. Will payrecords FINTRAC's stated payment commitment, not confirmation that payment has completed. Appealed means the decision remains subject to Federal Court proceedings. Varied means the final amount differs from the amount first imposed.
FINTRAC describes AMPs as administrative and non-punitive: their purpose is to encourage future compliance, not to punish. They are distinct from criminal convictions and from provincial licensing discipline.
What we found for mortgage entities
No public mortgage-sector AMP was found in the five-year FINTRAC notice list reviewed as of 2026-08-04. That research result is time-limited, not proof that mortgage entities face no enforcement exposure.
Mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers, and covered non-financial-entity lenders have had FINTRAC obligations since October 11, 2024. Review the official mortgage obligations rather than transferring a real-estate notice to a different legal role.
What changed after March 26, 2026
FINTRAC says the amended framework applies to violations that occur after March 26, 2026. It identifies increased maximum penalty amounts, ability to pay, mandatory compliance agreements for prescribed violations, and compliance orders among the changes.
“up to 40 times current limits”
FINTRAC says its updated administrative monetary penalties policy and calculation guidance are still being developed. The phrase does not supply a typical amount, an automatic multiplier, a sector-specific outcome, or a complete calculation method.
Read FINTRAC's legislative-amendment summary and AMP policy together, and recheck both as updated guidance is published.
Source and publication boundary
FINTRAC explains that public notices identify the person or entity, nature of the violation, and applicable amount, with expanded details intended to educate reporting entities and the public. See the public-notice transparency backgrounder.
Product research, not legal advice. Source/status reviewed 2026-08-04; recheck before publication.