FNF appeals ruling upholding FinCEN AML rule

Fidelity National Financial (FNF) is appealing a federal judge’s decision to uphold the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)  Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers Rule (AML rule).

The title firm filed its appeal of the summary judgement ruling on Friday in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Filed in May 2025, the lawsuit lists FinCEN and its director Andrea Gacki, as well as the Department of the Treasury and its secretary Scott Bessent, as defendants. In the lawsuit, FNF claims that the rule, which was promulgated under the Biden administration, is “arbitrary and capricious,” and that the rule will cause “irreparable harm.” 

The rule requires title firms to report specific details on all-cash home purchase transactions. These include the names, addresses, dates of birth, citizenship status and ID numbers of all people involved — including minors, payment details and information about trusts and entities that are purchasing the property.

In February, Judge Wendy Berger of U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Fla., adopted a report and recommendation filed in early December by Magistrate Judge Samuel Horovitz, granting FinCEN’s cross motion for summary judgement, ultimately upholding the rule.

Due to this ruling, the rule went into effect on March 1, as scheduled. However, in mid-March, a federal judge in Texas struck down the rule, finding that FinCEN had exceeded its statutory authority with the AML rule. This decision vacated the rule entirely, restoring the status quo that existed before the regulation took effect nationwide. 

That lawsuit was filed by Flowers Title Companies, LLC., which challenged the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that FinCEN lacked authority under the Bank Secrecy Act to impose such sweeping reporting requirements.

“The fact that some bad actors have conducted non-financed real estate transactions does not make such transactions categorically ‘suspicious,’” U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas wrote in his ruling. “If it did, then nearly every type of transaction imaginable would be ‘suspicious.’”

The judge noted that by FinCEN’s own estimates, the rule would have covered between 800,000 and 850,000 transfers annually at a compliance cost of up to $690 million.

This ruling directly conflicts with Magistrate Judge Horovitz’s report, in which he concluded that under the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN has the clear authority to create rules designed to prevent money laundering at the federal level. Additionally, he found that FinCEN has shown that the rule is needed based on its experience with the prior Geographic Targeting Orders, and that despite FNF’s pushback, “suspicious transactions” is a defined category and not overly broad. Magistrate Judge Horovitz also found that the law-enforcement-related benefits of the rule outweighed the costs of compliance.

Earlier this month, FinCEN proposed a new anti-money laundering rule that would seek to reform how financial institutions build AML and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) programs under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN said proposed changes aim to reduce the compliance burden by “promoting risk-based and reasonably designed programs” — and create greater consistency in how banks are evaluated for effectiveness. Additionally, the rule would revise FinCEN’s regulations to reflect changes from the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 — and fully replace a prior proposed rule published July 3, 2024, which FinCEN is withdrawing.

Public comment on the rule is open through mid-June. 

FNF did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on its decision to appeal the summary judgment ruling.