News Summary

A federal judge has suspended the enforcement of a cash reporting requirement imposed on businesses along the Mexican border in Southern California. The ruling, which affects San Diego and Imperial Counties, was deemed necessary due to concerns over the destabilizing impact on local businesses. The measure, enacted to combat financial crimes linked to drug cartels, has faced scrutiny for its economic implications, particularly for small money service operators. Ongoing legal battles continue to highlight the tension between regulatory measures and the economy in border regions.

California – A federal judge has halted the enforcement of a controversial cash reporting requirement that affected businesses operating along the Mexican border in Southern California. U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino issued the ruling that suspends the rule specifically in San Diego and Imperial Counties, which were among the areas most impacted by the new law.

The requirement was enacted in March 2023 by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as part of efforts to combat money laundering and financial transactions linked to Mexican drug cartels. Businesses were mandated to report cash transactions exceeding $200, a measure intended to reveal suspicious financial activities in targeted locations. This affected check cashers and currency exchangers across 30 ZIP codes in California and Texas.

The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Esperanza Gomez, a money transfer business owner in San Diego, who argued that the reporting rule imposed an undue burden on business operators. Gomez noted a staggering 50% to 60% decrease in customer traffic in the week following the implementation of the rule, prompting concerns about its broader economic impact. Under this enforcement, Western Union ceased cash transfers over $200, further aggravating the situation for many businesses relying on such transactions.

In addition to the ongoing case in California, Gomez’s legal team is also involved in a parallel lawsuit in a Texas federal court contesting the same reporting requirement. A separate judge in Texas previously ordered FinCEN to cease enforcement against 10 small money service businesses engaged in a similar legal dispute.

Robert Johnson, an attorney representing Gomez and other plaintiffs, has underscored the damaging consequences of the rule on local businesses. He indicated that the government’s records supporting the requirement were extensive but lacked relevant evidence connecting the operations of these businesses to illicit activities. Johnson described the $200 limit as a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring probable cause.

Although the government maintains that the rule serves a legitimate purpose and is specifically designed for a 180-day enforcement period in high-activity ZIP codes, Judge Sammartino expressed concern over inconsistencies in the government’s documentation related to the measure. The judge’s decision suggests a potential lack of credibility and raises questions about the rule’s legality.

Katherine Parker, an attorney for the Department of Justice, acknowledged the possible negative implications for businesses affected by the rule but defended the initiative as a necessary step toward preventing financial crimes associated with drug trafficking and money laundering. However, the ongoing legal battles reflect a significant divide between the government’s objectives and the realities faced by businesses in the region.

The suspension of the cash reporting requirement in Southern California raises important questions about regulatory measures implemented to combat financial crime and their impact on small businesses. As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome may set a precedent affecting similar regulations nationwide and the relationship between financial oversight and economic activity in border regions.

As the situation develops, stakeholders from both sides continue to assess the implications of the ruling for the future of financial regulation in the area.