Most remember the Corporate Transparency Act and the ensuing confusion. Did FinCEN just deliver the sequel?

On March 1, 2026, a new nationwide real estate reporting rule, the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers (the Rule), imposed sweeping disclosure obligations on non-financed residential transactions involving entities and trusts. Less than three weeks later, a federal court in Texas vacated the Rule when it concluded that FinCEN had exceeded its authority. The pattern is familiar. Like the CTA, the Rule promised sweeping transparency and triggered confusion on compliance. Ultimately, the CTA was reined in by the courts and it appears the Rule may be heading towards the same fate

FinCEN, short for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a government agency within the Department of Treasury, recently unveiled the Rule, which mandates ownership disclosure of certain non-financed real estate transfers. Intended to target money laundering in the residential real estate sector, the Rule aims to impose significant reporting obligations and strict penalties for failure to file a Real Estate Report for covered transactions. Those penalties included civil fines of up to $1,430 per violation, up to $111,308 for a pattern of noncompliance, and potential criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and imprisonment. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Flowers Title Companies, LLC v. Bessent that vacated the Rule, the Rule’s compliance cost for the first year alone was estimated between $428.4 million and $690.4 million, which accounts for the 800,000 to 850,000 real estate transactions estimated to require compliance with the Rule.

Prior to being vacated, a Real Estate Report was required when a “reportable transfer” occurred. Transfers were considered reportable if residential real property, defined as one‑ to four‑family homes located in the U.S., was transferred without traditional financing, meaning the buyer did not obtain a mortgage from a financial institution subject to an anti‑money laundering program. These would have included common transactions such as the transfer of a condo to a limited liability company, even without any money changing hands, or a family trust’s purchase of a vacation home using private financing.

At this stage, the Rule’s future remains unclear. Following the Eastern District of Texas’ Order, FinCEN issued guidance confirming that reporting persons are not currently required to file Real Estate Reports and will not face liability for failing to do so while the Order remains in effect.

For now, the Rule’s reporting requirements are paused, but individuals, businesses, title companies, and anyone planning real estate transfers should know the Rule (and the reporting requirements) could return.. An appeal of the Court’s Order is widely expected. Depending on what transpires with the litigation, reporting obligations could return quickly, potentially with limited notice. The parallels to the Corporate Transparency Act are clear, reinforcing the need for businesses to stay vigilant as ownership‑disclosure rules affecting corporate and real estate transactions continue to evolve.