AML Whistleblower Program vs. Other Whistleblower Programs: What’s Different?

People who spot money laundering or sanctions violations at work often face a difficult question: Should they report what they know, and where? The answer may involve an internal compliance team, a government agency, or both. It may also involve a whistleblower program that can provide legal protections and, in some cases, a financial award.

The federal anti-money laundering whistleblower program is distinctive because it focuses on violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and certain sanctions laws. It also has a formal reward structure: eligible whistleblowers may receive an award percentage range of 10% to 30% of monetary sanctions collected in a qualifying enforcement action. But that does not mean every report qualifies, or that an award is guaranteed.

This guide explains how the program works, how it differs from other major federal whistleblower programs, and what someone considering a report can do next. It is general information, not legal advice.

What Is the AML/BSA Whistleblower Program?

The anti-money laundering (AML) whistleblower program is a federal reporting and award framework for people who provide original information about certain financial crimes and regulatory violations. It is administered by the U.S. Treasury Department, with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) playing a central role. FinCEN is the Treasury bureau responsible for administering the BSA and supporting efforts to combat money laundering and related threats.

The BSA requires financial institutions and certain other businesses to maintain compliance programs, keep specified records, and report certain suspicious activity to the government. A key part of that reporting system is the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). A SAR is a confidential report that a financial institution files with FinCEN when it detects activity that may involve money laundering or other specified suspicious conduct.

The whistleblower program is not a way for the public to read or obtain SARs. SARs are protected by strict confidentiality rules. Rather, a whistleblower may provide information about underlying conduct—for example, evidence that a company knowingly failed to file required SARs or helped customers evade reporting requirements. A person should not disclose a SAR or its existence in a way that violates the law.

Legal Origin and Timeline

Congress created BSA whistleblower provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The initial provisions established incentives and protections for people who provided information about certain violations.

On December 23, 2022, Congress enacted the AML Whistleblower Improvement Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. The amendments strengthened the program and clarified important features, including the potential award structure and protections against retaliation. That date matters because it marks a significant expansion of the framework—not the original creation of every BSA whistleblower right.

The program’s rules and implementation can evolve. Anyone considering a report should check FinCEN’s current guidance, forms, and instructions at fincen.gov, and consider speaking with an attorney experienced in whistleblower matters before submitting sensitive information.

What Makes the AML Program Different?

Several features set the BSA whistleblower program apart from familiar programs run by agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Feature AML/BSA program Other major federal programs Primary subject matter BSA violations and certain covered sanctions violations Often limited to a specific agency’s area, such as securities or commodities Potential award Generally 10%–30% of collected monetary sanctions in a qualifying action, subject to statutory requirements Many programs also use percentage-based awards, but rules and thresholds differ Evidence commonly involved Transaction records, internal controls, customer due diligence, SAR processes, or sanctions screening Evidence tied to the relevant program, such as offering documents or trading records Reporting destination FinCEN and other relevant authorities, depending on the facts and applicable procedures The agency responsible for the suspected violation

The practical difference is scope. A suspected failure to conduct customer due diligence may point toward the BSA program; alleged securities fraud may belong to a different whistleblower framework. Some situations overlap. For example, a financial institution’s conduct could raise both AML concerns and securities-law issues. The relevant agency, eligibility rules, filing requirements, and deadlines may differ, so a person should not assume that one submission automatically preserves rights under every program.

Eligibility and “Original Information”

Eligibility depends on the facts, the person’s role, the source of the information, and whether the information meets the statutory requirements. In broad terms, a whistleblower must provide information that is sufficiently specific and credible to assist an investigation or enforcement action. The information generally must be original: not already known to the government from another source, unless the whistleblower’s submission meaningfully adds to what authorities know.

“Original information” does not necessarily mean that a person must be the first to notice a suspicious transaction. It can include firsthand knowledge, analysis of nonpublic records, or details that help investigators understand how a suspected scheme worked. For example, a compliance employee might identify a pattern of repeated transactions structured to avoid reporting thresholds and explain how managers responded to internal alerts.

Eligibility may be affected by how information was obtained and by a person’s job duties. Employees in compliance, audit, or supervisory roles may face additional considerations, especially when the information came through responsibilities to identify or investigate misconduct. Other legal limits may apply to attorneys, government personnel, or people who participated in the wrongdoing. These questions are fact-specific; a person should get legal advice rather than assume that a job title automatically qualifies or disqualifies them.

Internal reporting is not necessarily required before contacting the government. Still, internal reporting can be relevant in some circumstances, and company policies may address how concerns should be escalated. The right approach depends on the risk of retaliation, the risk that evidence could be altered or destroyed, confidentiality obligations, and the rules of the particular program.

Qualifying Violations: More Than Missing SARs

The BSA program may cover information about a range of suspected violations. The examples below are not a complete list, and a mistake or weak control does not automatically establish a legal violation. The key questions often include what the law required, what the organization knew, and whether the conduct was intentional, reckless, or otherwise legally actionable.

Suspicious Activity Reports

A report might concern a financial institution that knowingly failed to file required SARs, filed them late as part of a broader pattern, or interfered with the reporting process. The whistleblower should focus on the underlying conduct and supporting evidence—not share a confidential SAR or treat a suspicion as proof of a violation.

Structuring

Structuring generally involves breaking up transactions to evade a financial institution’s reporting or recordkeeping requirements. For example, a person might repeatedly deposit amounts just below a reporting threshold. A report could be relevant if it describes a deliberate scheme, an employee’s role in facilitating it, or a company’s failure to address credible evidence of it.

Customer Due Diligence

Customer due diligence (CDD) refers to steps financial institutions take to understand who their customers are and, where required, the nature and purpose of customer relationships. A whistleblower may have information about deliberate failures to identify beneficial owners, investigate suspicious customer activity, or follow required controls. Whether a particular failure violates the law depends on the applicable requirements and the surrounding facts.

Records and Reporting Controls

The BSA includes recordkeeping and reporting obligations. Potentially relevant information might concern falsified records, deliberate gaps in transaction documentation, or a system designed to prevent required information from reaching regulators. A useful report often explains how the conduct worked, who was involved, and what records could corroborate it.

Sanctions Violations

The 2022 amendments expanded the whistleblower framework to cover certain violations of U.S. sanctions laws. Sanctions-related information may involve prohibited transactions, evasion through intermediaries, or failures connected to screening and escalation controls. The precise law and agency involved depend on the conduct; not every sanctions concern is necessarily handled in the same way as a BSA matter.

Formal Reward Structure and Award Percentage Range

A major feature of the program is its formal reward structure. In qualifying cases, an eligible whistleblower may receive 10% to 30% of monetary sanctions collected as a result of a successful covered action, when the statutory conditions are met. The award is not calculated simply from the amount of money involved in suspicious activity. It is tied to sanctions collected in an enforcement action.

The percentage is not automatic. Authorities consider the value of the information and other relevant factors under the law and applicable procedures. A report that does not lead to a qualifying action, or an action that does not meet the required monetary threshold, may not result in an award. An award may also be affected by statutory limits and eligibility rules.

These BSA-specific incentives can matter because people may have detailed knowledge of internal controls, transaction patterns, or management decisions that are not visible to investigators from outside the organization. But the possibility of payment should not be confused reinstatement back pay with a promise of payment. No attorney, agency, or publication can guarantee an award or a particular outcome.

Confidentiality, Retaliation, and Practical Risks

Whistleblower programs can provide protections against retaliation, but raising a concern can still carry workplace and personal risks. Retaliation might include termination, demotion, threats, or other adverse treatment connected to protected reporting. The legal standards and procedures for bringing a retaliation claim can be technical, so prompt advice from counsel may be important.

Confidentiality also requires care. Do not forward internal files to a personal account, take records you are not authorized to access, or share confidential SAR information without legal guidance. Preserve what you are lawfully permitted to retain and write down, for yourself, relevant dates, people, systems, and events. If evidence is on a work device, do not use a work laptop for sensitive personal communications with an attorney. Ask counsel how to communicate securely.

What to Do Next: A Practical Checklist

Identify the conduct. Write a concise timeline of what happened, when, and who may have been involved. Separate facts from assumptions. Note what you personally observed, what records indicate, and what you only suspect. Do not disclose SARs. Describe underlying activity without improperly revealing a SAR or its existence. Protect sensitive information. Avoid unauthorized copying, personal email transfers, or use of work devices for private legal communications. Review the current process. Check FinCEN’s whistleblower information at fincen.gov; confirm current submission instructions and requirements. Consider independent legal advice. An experienced whistleblower attorney can assess eligibility, original information, confidentiality issues, retaliation risks, and whether another program may also apply. Keep expectations realistic. An investigation, enforcement action, and award decision can take time, and no particular result is guaranteed.

The Bottom Line

The AML/BSA wrongful termination whistleblower program combines a subject-matter focus on financial crime with BSA-specific incentives and a potential 10%–30% award percentage range. Its coverage can include suspected failures involving SARs, structuring, customer due diligence, records, and certain sanctions violations. Compared with other whistleblower programs, its distinctive feature is the connection to the BSA’s reporting and compliance system—and the sensitive information that system protects.

For someone with credible, nonpublic information, the most important first steps are to document facts carefully, avoid mishandling confidential material, review FinCEN’s current guidance, and get independent legal advice before deciding how to report.