by Miguel Cassagne

(Head of CASSAGNE Consultores)

April 17, 2025

Introduction

On April 17, 2025, Decree No. 274/2025 was published in the Official Gazette, introducing new amendments to Law No. 25,246 on the prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (?ML/TF/FP?).

This regulatory reform forms part of the ongoing process of updating the legal framework, driven by the need to consolidate a more efficient preventive system, aligned with current international standards and in response to challenges identified both in the practice of supervisory authorities and in multilateral evaluation forums.

This work presents a detailed analysis of the main changes introduced, which impact the powers of the Financial Intelligence Unit (Unidad de Información Financiera - ?UIF?), the obligations of reporting entities, and aspects related to the sanctioning regime and the supervisory and remediation procedures.

The aim is to provide a reference tool for legal practitioners and reporting entities, facilitating the proper interpretation and implementation of the new provisions.

1. Changes in Powers and Competencies of the UIF (Articles 13 and 14 of Law No. 25,246)

1.1. With respect to the UIF's Competencies (Article 13)

Although the legal drafting technique provides for the complete replacement of Article 13 of Law No. 25,246 (as previously amended by Law No. 27,739), the scope and wording of the new Article 13 (as introduced by Decree No. 274/2025) are generally similar to the previous text, except for the following points:

a.) Express Incorporation of Strategic Analysis: The UIF is now expressly empowered under Law No. 25,246 to use information received from reporting entities (Article 21) and new information obtained through exchanges with other public agencies or intelligence entities (subject to the confidentiality obligations set forth in Article 22), not only within the framework of investigations into ML/TF/FP offences and their predicate offences, but also for strategic analysis purposes aimed at identifying trends and patterns related to ML/TF/FP. (Article 13, paragraph 1)

b.) Expansion of Scope: The UIF?s powers are extended to cover activities that, while not amounting to ML/TF/FP offences themselves, are related to such offences. (Article 13, paragraph 2, first paragraph)

c.) Exchange of Information with Intelligence Entities: It is expressly established that, for the aforementioned purposes and while maintaining confidentiality under Article 22, the UIF may request, gather, and exchange information with public entities performing intelligence activities. (Article 13, paragraph 2, second paragraph)

d.) Change in Relationship with the Public Prosecutor?s Office and Judiciary: Previously, the UIF could act as a complainant (querellante) in criminal proceedings. Under the new Article 13 (paragraph 3), the UIF may continue to collaborate with the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Judiciary in ML/TF/FP matters, but such collaboration will now occur externally, without formal participation as a party in criminal proceedings.

e.) Extension of Collaboration: Collaboration is extended not only to the Public Prosecutor?s Office and Judiciary but also to any other national public administration body. (Article 13, paragraph 3)

1.2. With respect to the UIF's Powers (Article 14)

Similarly, although the entire Article 14 of Law No. 25,246 was replaced (as amended by Law No. 27,739), the wording and scope of the new Article 14 are virtually identical to the previous version, except for the addition of paragraph 17.

New Paragraph 17: The UIF is expressly authorized to exchange information with other public agencies or entities that have intelligence or investigative functions, provided that the confidentiality obligation under Article 22 is observed. Such exchanges may occur when the UIF deems that the information may assist recipient authorities in focusing on cases or may be relevant to ML/TF/FP matters.

2. Amendments Regarding the Obligations of Reporting Entities (Article 21 of Law No. 25,246)

Similarly, although Article 21 was fully replaced, the new wording is almost identical to the previous version, except for the following additions:

a.) Risk-Based Approach (RBA): The new introductory part of Article 21 expressly incorporates the Risk-Based Approach principle, requiring the UIF to regulate obligations under a risk-based methodology?a practice that had already been informally implemented through UIF resolutions.

b.) Due Diligence and Representation: The law now explicitly provides that where clients, applicants, or contributors act on behalf of third parties, reporting entities must take the necessary measures to identify the person on whose behalf they are acting. It is also incorporated that reporting entities may exchange customer due diligence information and risk management information, provided that data subjects consent and confidentiality is ensured. (Article 21, subsection a, Decree No. 274/2025)

3. Amendments on the Application of Fines (Article 24 of Law No. 25,246)

Following the same legislative technique, Article 24 was entirely replaced, although its content remains substantially the same, except for the following:

a.) Discretion to Reduce Minimum Fines: The UIF is expressly authorized to reduce the minimum fine applicable for failures to file suspicious transaction reports (?STRs?), based on criteria of efficacy and proportionality.

The new wording states: "The amount of the fine provided in the previous paragraph may be reduced below the established minimum when the Competent Authority considers that the amount is not consistent with the criteria of efficacy and proportionality provided in this Article."

b.) Clarification for Reporting Entities: This discretion does not create a right for the reporting entity to claim or expect a reduction in the fine. Rather, it is an exceptional faculty solely at the discretion of the UIF.

4. Introduction of a Remediation Process Prior to UIF Administrative Proceedings (New Article 24 ter of Law No. 25,246)

The newly introduced Article 24 ter, added by Decree No. 274/2025, establishes a preliminary remediation procedure called ?Suspension of the Administrative Summary on Probation?.

a.) Scope: This process is available to reporting entities that breach obligations under Article 21 (excluding failures to file STRs).

b.) Mechanism: Upon detecting breaches, the UIF may allow the reporting entity (and, where applicable, its administrative body members) to access the suspension process, provided the UIF considers that the harm to the ML/TF/FP prevention system can be remedied.

c.) Requirements: Reporting entities must comply with certain monetary and non-monetary obligations within a timeframe established by the UIF. Monetary obligations involve fines; non-monetary obligations involve corrective actions.

d.) Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to comply within the established timeframes will result in the resumption of the administrative proceeding and the potential application of sanctions under Law No. 25,246.

Relationship to Existing Supervision Procedures

It remains to be analyzed whether this new remediation procedure will be integrated with, or will supplement, the pre-existing supervision process regulated by UIF Resolution No. 61/2023.

d.) Current Framework (Resolution No. 61/2023): Under the current system, during supervisory processes, the UIF may order corrective actions prior to opening a formal administrative proceeding.

e.) Similarity with New Article 24 ter: Both frameworks foresee the imposition of corrective measures and establish that failure to comply may trigger an administrative proceeding.

Thus, the new Article 24 ter represents either an extension of, or a second opportunity following, the existing supervision framework, reinforcing the preventive and remedial approach to compliance failures.

6. Conclusion

The amendments introduced by Decree No. 274/2025 represent a significant advancement in strengthening Argentina?s anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, and counter-proliferation financing (ML/TF/FP) regime, by updating and expanding the competencies of the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), refining the compliance standards required of reporting entities, and providing greater flexibility and rationality to the sanctioning system.

The express incorporation of strategic analysis in the use of information, the authorization for information exchange with intelligence agencies, the formal recognition of the risk-based approach, and the introduction of a prior remediation procedure before the initiation of administrative proceedings establish a regulatory framework more closely aligned with international best practices.

Nevertheless, these innovations also pose new challenges for reporting entities, particularly in terms of risk management, effective compliance, and the adaptation of internal procedures, thereby requiring specialized and ongoing attention to avoid regulatory contingencies.

In this context, thorough knowledge of the reforms and their careful application become essential for the proper fulfillment of legal duties in the fields of prevention and control.

Miguel Cassagne

April 17, 2025