The Mexican banking sector is at the center of controversy following recent accusations from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. This Wednesday, June 25, the U.S. authority named CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector for allegedly participating in money laundering schemes linked to drug trafficking, particularly to the trafficking of fentanyl.
CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector have been identified as key players in moving financial resources for Mexican criminal organizations, according to investigations by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This action marks the first time sanctions are applied under the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which grant the Treasury new powers to combat money laundering associated with synthetic opioid trafficking.
ALSO READ. Mexico’s President attacks a journalist from The New York Times again
What sanctions did the United States impose on Mexican banks?
As part of the measures, U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from transferring funds to or from CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector. This restriction also applies to any account or cryptocurrency address managed on behalf of these entities.
“Financial facilitators like CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector are enabling the poisoning of countless Americans by moving money on behalf of cartels, making them vital cogs in the fentanyl supply chain,” declared Scott Bessent, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
The announced prohibitions will take effect 21 days after their publication in the Federal Register, representing a significant blow to the international operations of these banks.
What role did CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector play in the alleged money laundering?
According to investigations by the Treasury Department, the three Mexican financial institutions allegedly played a prolonged and crucial role in laundering millions of dollars for Mexican cartels. These operations allowed criminal groups to acquire chemical precursors, mostly from China, used to produce fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that has triggered a serious public health crisis in the United States.
Details of the case reveal patterns of transactions, account creation, and financial services that facilitated the cartels’ illicit activities.
Which cartels is CIBanco linked to, according to authorities?
CIBanco, an institution with over $7 billion in assets, has been accused of facilitating financial operations for the Beltrán Leyva Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), and the Gulf Cartel.
The most relevant findings include:
- In 2023, a CIBanco employee allegedly created a specific account to launder $10 million on behalf of a member of the Gulf Cartel.
- Between 2021 and 2024, the bank processed more than $2.1 million in payments from Mexican companies to Chinese companies supplying chemical precursors used to produce fentanyl.
These actions, according to FinCEN, position CIBanco as a “primary money laundering concern” in relation to illicit opioids.
What did authorities discover about Intercam?
Intercam, with over $4 billion in assets, also came under scrutiny for its alleged associations with the CJNG, one of the most powerful and violent criminal organizations in Mexico.
According to the Treasury Department:
- At the end of 2022, senior Intercam executives allegedly held direct meetings with suspected CJNG members to discuss money laundering schemes, including fund transfers from China.
- Between 2021 and 2024, a Chinese company linked to the trafficking of chemical precursors allegedly received more than $1.5 million from Mexican companies through Intercam.
This sustained pattern of financial operations, according to FinCEN, seriously undermines the integrity of the banking institution.
What role did Vector Casa de Bolsa play in these schemes?
Vector, a brokerage firm managing nearly $11 billion in assets, has been linked to money laundering for the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels, two of the most relevant criminal groups in international drug trafficking.
U.S. authorities documented that:
- Between 2013 and 2021, a “money mule” for the Sinaloa Cartel allegedly used various methods to launder approximately $2 million from the United States to Mexico through Vector.
- From 2018 to 2023, Vector facilitated over $1 million in payments from Mexican companies to Chinese companies identified as suppliers of chemical precursors for fentanyl production.
FinCEN emphasized the “significant deficiencies” in Vector’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) controls, which allowed these illicit operations to take place.
What is the impact of this measure on Mexico and its financial system?
The designation of CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector by the United States represents a major blow to Mexico’s financial system and its international reputation. Although the Treasury highlighted the “strong collaboration” between the governments of Mexico and the United States in combating money laundering and illicit financing, the involvement of three institutions of this level exposes structural weaknesses in controls and prevention mechanisms.
Mexico’s Ministry of Finance and Public Credit announced it will issue a statement on the matter in the coming days, although so far, no possible sanctions or local investigations against the named banks have been detailed.
What is the response from Mexico’s Ministry of Finance?
In the face of the sanctions announced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury against the Mexican financial institutions, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) issued an official statement clarifying its position on the matter.
The Ministry emphasized that it maintains a relationship of coordination and dialogue with the U.S. Treasury Department, always within the framework of respect for Mexico’s sovereignty, shared responsibility, and cooperation without subordination.
As part of this collaboration, the U.S. Treasury formally notified Mexico’s Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) and the Ministry of Finance about alleged irregularities involving these financial institutions. In response, the Mexican government requested concrete evidence linking these banks to criminal activities that could be corroborated by the UIF or Mexico’s National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV).
However, according to the Ministry of Finance, no such evidence has been provided to date. The only verifiable information from the U.S. side consists of records of some electronic transfers made through these institutions to legally established Chinese companies. Nevertheless, Mexican authorities pointed out that these types of transactions occur in the thousands across the national financial system, as part of regular trade relations.
The UIF reported that over 300 Mexican companies have made transactions with Chinese companies through ten different national financial institutions. This is unsurprising, given that trade between Mexico and China amounts to approximately \$139 billion annually.
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, the CNBV launched its own review process of the sanctioned institutions within the framework of national regulations. The result of these investigations revealed administrative deficiencies, which have been addressed with penalties and corrective actions totaling 134 million pesos.
