1. What are the allegations against each institution?
According to the US Treasury, Vector Casa de Bolsa allegedly processed transactions linked with Genaro García Luna and received deposits from supposed mules of the Sinaloa Cartel. It is also accused of facilitating payments to Chinese companies involved in shipping chemicals.
CIBanco, on the other hand, is accused of processing over 40 transfers exceeding $200,000 for a company linked to the trafficking of precursor chemicals. It is also implicated in helping create a supposedly fraudulent account used for laundering $10 million.
Intercam Banco, meanwhile, is said to have conducted over $850,000 in operations with Chinese companies related to opioids. It is also accused of meetings with CJNG members for supposedly arranged money laundering schemes.
2. What do the involved banks say?
All three institutions have denied the allegations. Vector claims it has operated for 50 years under regulatory compliance standards and that the flagged operations were with legally established companies.
CIBanco asserts it has no connection to illegal activities and that its clients’ resources are protected according to law. Intercam also denied the accusations, stating it adheres to all anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing norms.
3. What does the Mexican government say?
President Claudia Sheinbaum demanded concrete evidence from the Treasury Department to take action. She stated that, so far, no substantial evidence has been received beyond “allegations” and the reports from the US contain only general, non-conclusive information.
She mentioned that the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) and the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) have only detected administrative breaches, already sanctioned. She emphasized that no one would be shielded but reiterated the need for evidence to act legally.
4. Will customers be affected?
As of now, there are no signs that the daily banking operations of CIBanco, Intercam, or Vector customers are compromised. The institutions continue to operate normally, and the Mexican government has guaranteed savings protection under the law.
The US sanctions primarily focus on restricting international operations with these institutions, especially regarding suspicious transfers. They do not target regular users’ personal accounts.
5. Did the US provide proof of money laundering to the Mexican government?
Not yet. President Claudia Sheinbaum stated that the Treasury Department has not sent specific evidence demonstrating the alleged money laundering by the accused institutions.
She indicated that Mexico has only received a general communication with confidential allegations but lacks direct evidence. “We cannot act without compelling evidence,” she maintained.
Mexican authorities, including the CNBV and UIF, have initiated internal reviews but have found only administrative breaches previously sanctioned.
6. In which other investigations has FinCEN participated?
The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has a long history of detecting suspicious activities related to organized crime. It has participated in global investigations like the Panama Papers and FinCEN Files, revealing how international banks allowed dubious transactions worth billions of dollars.
In Latin America, FinCEN has collaborated in cases like that of former Mexican Secretary Genaro García Luna and monitoring financial flows linked to drug trafficking, corruption, and terrorism. The sanctioning of three Mexican entities fits into this strategy of cross-border surveillance aimed at combating asset laundering.
