Which U.S. money-transmitters were implicated or prosecuted related to the Minnesota fraud investigations in 2024–2025?

1. What officials say: four money‑transfer firms notified, but not named

Treasury Department briefings and FinCEN statements made in January 2026 confirm that FinCEN “notified four money transfer firms they are under investigation” as part of the crackdown on benefits fraud tied to Minnesota, while also issuing notices to “money services businesses” in the state under the Bank Secrecy Act ^{[1] [2]}. The public disclosures emphasize the investigative step—requests for information and enhanced reporting—rather than criminal indictments of transmitters, and Fortune/Forbes and PYMNTS reporting frame these as regulatory probes designed to surface transaction patterns that might support later law enforcement action ^{[4] [5]}.

2. What the paperwork did: a Geographic Targeting Order and information requests

FinCEN’s actions included a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) requiring additional data collection on outbound international transfers of $3,000 or more by banks and money transmitters in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, effective February 2026, and four separate notices of investigation to Minnesota money‑service businesses requesting records under the Bank Secrecy Act ^{[4] [2] [3]}. Those measures are investigative and disclosure tools intended to help authorities link benefit payments to overseas recipients or repeated use of particular transmitters; the published materials describe them as steps to aid prosecutions and recovery of laundered funds rather than immediate prosecution of the firms themselves ^{[4] [3]}.

3. What prosecutions in the Minnesota scandal have looked like — and what’s missing

By late 2025 federal prosecutors had secured dozens of convictions tied to the broader social‑services schemes and described more than $1 billion stolen across multiple plots, with numerous individual defendants and provider organizations charged ^{[6] [7]}. Those public case filings and press releases focus on individuals, provider organizations, and nonprofit fronts rather than naming U.S. money‑transmitters as prosecuted co‑conspirators in the material provided; the Justice Department’s Minnesota docket material referenced additional defendants and ongoing charges but the reporting assembled here does not identify money‑transmitter indictments tied to the 2024–2025 investigations ^{[8] [6]}.

4. Alternate interpretations, community implications, and reporting limits

Advocates and some reporters warn the Treasury’s emphasis on specific payment channels could risk conflating criminal networks with immigrant communities—reporting notes critiques that rhetoric and enforcement might stigmatize Somali‑linked networks even as investigators seek patterns across banks and transmitters ^[4]. Importantly, none of the cited government or news releases in the provided record publicly named or produced criminal charges against identifiable U.S. money‑transmitters for activity tied to the Minnesota fraud during 2024–2025; published actions were investigative notices, reporting orders, and prosecutions focused on persons and provider organizations ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Because publicly available FinCEN and Treasury statements released to date emphasize information collection and alerts, it remains possible that named charges or civil enforcement against transmitters could emerge later—this review is limited to the documents and reporting provided and does not claim knowledge beyond those sources ^{[3] [5]}.