H.J. Res. 56 is a Congressional Review Act joint resolution that disapproves the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s rule titled "Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers" (89 Fed.
Reg. 72156, Sept. 4, 2024) and states the rule "shall have no force or effect."
If enacted, the resolution would eliminate that FinCEN rule as a legal obligation and trigger the CRA’s downstream prohibition on reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new statutory authority. The change would directly alter compliance obligations for registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers (ERAs) and would constrain FinCEN’s immediate rulemaking options in this rule area.
At a Glance
What It Does
The joint resolution uses chapter 8 of Title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) to declare the specified FinCEN rule void and without legal effect. Under the CRA framework, a successful disapproval also prevents the agency from later issuing a substantially similar rule unless Congress provides new statutory authority.
Who It Affects
The rule targeted concerns registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers; their compliance officers and AML programs would be the primary operational stakeholders. FinCEN, federal law enforcement partners that rely on SARs, and vendors that support AML compliance would face downstream effects from the removal of this rule.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow-but-direct use of the CRA to reverse a financial-sector regulation; it would remove a newly articulated federal AML/SAR requirement for advisers and limit FinCEN’s ability to restore that specific regulatory approach without further congressional action. That shifts the regulatory landscape for adviser-focused AML obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution consists of a single operative decision: Congress disapproves the FinCEN rule identified by title and Federal Register citation and declares the rule has no legal force. The bill ties the action explicitly to chapter 8 of title 5, the statutory vehicle that governs how Congress reviews and can nullify agency rules.
By citing the rule and the CRA authority, the text focuses on reversal rather than amendment.
Legal consequences flow from the CRA: invalidating the rule removes any obligations that would have arisen under it, and the statute prevents the agency from issuing a "substantially the same" rule in the future unless Congress enacts new law. Practically, that means firms who anticipated implementing compliance-program changes or additional SAR filing routines under FinCEN’s rule would no longer be required by that rule to do so, and FinCEN could not quietly re-adopt the same approach without new legislative or regulatory authority.Operationally, the resolution narrows the set of federal AML mandates applicable to investment advisers to whatever obligations existed before the FinCEN rule.
It does not, by its text, create new alternative standards or substitute regulatory requirements; it simply removes the specified FinCEN rule from the body of enforceable federal rules. That leaves a regulatory gap that other regulators or Congress could address by different means, and it creates implementation questions about already-initiated compliance workstreams and contractual arrangements tied to the now-disapproved rule.Because the bill is focused on invalidation rather than replacement, affected parties would need to map which specific duties under the FinCEN text would vanish (for example, newly defined SAR triggers or program elements) and which existing obligations from other authorities (statutes, SEC rules, or bank partners’ policies) would remain.
The resolution therefore changes the legal baseline against which advisers and vendors will plan AML spending and compliance strategy.
The Five Things You Need to Know
H.J. Res. 56 invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove the FinCEN rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 72156 (Sept. 4, 2024).
The resolution’s single operative clause states the identified FinCEN rule "shall have no force or effect.", The targeted rule applies to registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers, as named in the resolution’s title.
Under the CRA, a successful disapproval blocks the agency from reissuing a "substantially the same" rule without new statutory authority from Congress.
The instrument is a joint resolution (H.J. Res.) — the statutory form Congress uses to nullify federal rules under the CRA framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identifies the rule and statutory authority for disapproval
The opening lines give the resolution its scope: it names the FinCEN rule by its long title and cites chapter 8 of Title 5 as the basis for congressional review and disapproval. That precision matters because CRA disapprovals hinge on exact identification of the rule being challenged; the citation ties the resolution to the Federal Register entry (89 Fed. Reg. 72156).
Express congressional disapproval
This short provision states in plain terms that Congress disapproves the specified FinCEN rule and that the rule "shall have no force or effect." In practice, that wording directs the Comptroller and relevant agencies to treat the rule as void for legal and administrative purposes once the resolution becomes law.
Collateral consequences for future rulemaking
By invoking chapter 8, the resolution triggers the CRA’s collateral bar on reissuing a rule in 'substantially the same' form. While the text does not restate all CRA mechanics, the statutory framework means FinCEN would be constrained from adopting the same regulatory approach without distinct congressional authorization, which alters the agency’s available regulatory pathways.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Registered Investment Advisers — They would avoid implementing any new AML program requirements or SAR filing obligations that the FinCEN rule would have imposed, reducing near-term compliance costs and program changes.
- Exempt Reporting Advisers — ERAs that would have fallen within new reporting or program duties escape those specific administrative burdens under the disapproved rule.
- Smaller advisory firms and boutique managers — Firms with limited compliance headcount stand to gain the most from avoided implementation work, vendor onboarding, and ongoing SAR-reporting processes tied to the vacated rule.
Who Bears the Cost
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — The agency loses an enforcement and reporting tool targeted at adviser-related AML risks and faces constrained avenues for addressing those risks without new legislation.
- Federal law enforcement and intelligence partners — Agencies that anticipated additional SAR data flows from advisers could see reduced visibility into adviser-related suspicious activity, complicating investigations.
- AML compliance vendors and service providers — Companies that invested in products and services specifically designed to meet the now-disapproved rule’s requirements may face lost contracts and delayed revenue.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between democratic oversight — Congress exercising authority to block an administrative rule it finds overreaching or burdensome — and the need for specialized, expert-driven regulatory tools to detect and disrupt financial crime; nullifying the rule reduces regulatory burden but also narrows an enforcement channel that agencies argue provides critical intelligence.
The resolution is brief and functionally absolute: it voids one identified rule and leaves unanswered what replaces it. That creates an implementation puzzle.
Firms that already began implementing the FinCEN rule (policy drafts, vendor contracts, training) will need to decide whether to halt work and accept sunk costs, or continue preparations on the chance of future regulation from another source. The resolution does not address the status of actions already taken under the rule while it was in force, or whether records created in reliance on the rule remain usable for law enforcement purposes.
A second tension concerns regulatory coverage. Eliminating a FinCEN rule aimed at advisers narrows federal AML coverage for an industry segment that many regulators have flagged as a potential locus of illicit financial activity.
The resolution creates a gap: either other agencies (for example, the SEC via its own authorities) must step in with different approaches, or Congress must legislate if policymakers want to preserve enhanced reporting from advisers. Finally, disapproving a technical rule via CRA is a blunt instrument; it prevents the agency from reissuing a closely similar rule and thereby can foreclose iterative fixes that would address specific legal or operational problems the agency identified when drafting the rule.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.