Editor’s note: A recent $150,000 FINTRAC penalty against a C21 brokerage in Ontario, which has initiated the process to appeal the decision, has reignited debate within the industry about the scope and structure of Canada’s AML framework. In the following opinion piece, Todd Shyiak, executive vice president of Century 21 Canada, argues the need for a practical reset — one that preserves strong oversight while better aligning obligations with those best suited to meet them.
Canada’s real estate sector supports strong action against money laundering. A transparent, trustworthy housing market is essential to consumer confidence, economic stability and public safety. Criminal exploitation of real estate undermines all three.
But good policy requires more than good intentions. It requires proportionate, practical regulation that assigns responsibility to those best equipped to carry it out.
Today, Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) framework, administered through FINTRAC, is increasingly placing real estate brokers in the position of frontline financial investigators — a role we are neither structurally equipped nor legally empowered to perform.
That misalignment is weakening the system rather than strengthening it.
Where the framework breaks down
Real estate brokers are now expected to assess and verify complex risk factors that extend far beyond our access to information or professional authority. These include:
- Unwinding layered corporate and numbered company structures
- Determining beneficial ownership arrangements
- Reviewing foreign entity documentation
- Validating source of funds
These are not simple identification tasks. They often require access to banking records, legal filings, cross-border financial intelligence, and forensic accounting expertise.
Banks, lenders and legal professionals already operate within regulated frameworks that provide them with access to this information. They have compliance departments, investigative tools and statutory authority to demand documentation.
Real estate brokers do not.
We are transaction facilitators. We are not financial auditors, nor are we investigative arms of the state.
Assigning investigative responsibilities to professionals without the tools to carry them out does not enhance enforcement — it creates compliance theatre.
A more effective path forward
Canada can strengthen its AML regime without overburdening one segment of the transaction chain.
First, verification of corporate structures, beneficial ownership, foreign entities and source-of-funds documentation should be aligned with financial institutions and legal professionals. They already have the infrastructure, legal authority and access required to do this work effectively.
Second, broker obligations should focus on what we can reasonably and responsibly control:
- Verifying individual identity using government-issued identification
- Maintaining required transaction records
- Reporting genuinely suspicious behaviour observed during the course of a transaction
These are meaningful contributions. They preserve accountability while aligning responsibility with professional scope.
Third, enforcement should focus on substantive risk rather than administrative technicalities. Much of the current compliance burden centres on documentation minutiae rather than clear indicators of criminal activity. Simplified guidance, standardized templates and a clear distinction between clerical errors and deliberate non-compliance would allow regulators to focus attention where it belongs: on real risk.
Collaboration, not conflict
The real estate industry does not seek exemption from AML obligations. We seek alignment.
A collaborative review involving the Canadian Real Estate Association, provincial regulators, industry councils and national broker networks would help refine expectations and close practical gaps. A coordinated approach will strengthen enforcement outcomes while ensuring the rules are realistic and enforceable in practice.
Canada’s fight against money laundering is too important to be weakened by structural inefficiencies.
Real estate professionals want to be part of the solution. But for the system to work, responsibilities must rest with those who have the authority, tools and access to do the job properly.
Effective regulation is not about assigning more responsibility. It is about assigning it wisely.
Todd Shyiak is executive vice president at Century 21 Canada, where he oversees operations including the selection and servicing of all technology and training, leads national recruiting and retention initiatives and actively pursues M&A opportunities for C21 brokers. He has been in the real estate industry for decades. As an agent, Todd sold over 850 homes and condos. He has managed and mentored many agents, sold MLS systems to dozens of boards across Canada and the U.S., consulted and created broker technology and tools and ran his own agent recruiting company.
A remarkably clear message and explanation. So appreciate this thoughtful, engaging, and intelligent advocacy for change that is long overdue. CREA ought to take the substance of it and make that the call for change with the Federal Government.
Anti–money laundering (AML) and proceeds-of-crime mitigation require meaningful consultation with all industry stakeholders. A collaborative review—bringing together regulators, lawmakers, law enforcement, financial institutions, and front-line reporting entities (including real estate and mortgage brokerages)—is the right path forward. Working together, we can ensure expectations are clear, proportionate, and focused on measurable outcomes that strengthen Canada’s ability to detect, deter, and disrupt illicit activity without imposing unintended burdens on compliant businesses.
It is my assertion that small, principled mortgage and real estate brokerages are increasingly at risk—not because they are unwilling to comply, but because the pace and breadth of overregulatory demands have become operationally and financially unsustainable, all in the name of mitigating AML / proceeds of crime.
My concern is straightforward: the current trajectory risks unintentionally disadvantaging the very firms that are doing things properly—smaller brokerages with limited administrative capacity—while sophisticated bad actors adapt quickly, shift channels, or exploit weak points elsewhere in the ecosystem.
Stronger, more direct Advocacy for consultation with federal regulators and policy-makers that includes practical input from front-line mortgage and real estate practitioners (not only large institutions and compliance vendors).
A clear articulation of proportionality—risk-based expectations that recognize size, business model, and actual exposure (e.g., brokerages that do not handle funds, do not operate trust accounts, and have minimal private lending).
A focus on outcomes over process—ensuring compliance obligations demonstrably improve AML effectiveness, rather than expanding documentation and reporting requirements that may not meaningfully increase detection or deterrence.
Realistic implementation support—templates, phased expectations, plain-language guidance, and sector-specific examples that small firms can execute without needing to “build a bank-sized compliance department.”
I believe there is an urgent need for Advocacy from all levels of industry to carry this message forward: overregulation can become a consumer protection issue in itself if it drives good, service-oriented brokerages out of the market, concentrates activity into fewer hands, reduces competition, and increases costs for Canadians—without commensurate gains in AML outcomes.
You had me at “Canada’s anti-money laundering rules for real estate need a practical reset.”
I thought I was alone in my concern over the ever increasing obligation to be… as you so plainly and correctly put it “an investigative arms of the state.”
I’ve been in real estate since 2008 and can hardly believe how miss aligned the FINTRAC responsibilities have become over the years.
great piece, thanks for saying something about this Mammoth Elephant in the room.
Well said. Their current requirements reach way beyond the limits of what a realtor has knowledge/ access to. We are not licensed to be government “paper pushers” and detectives ! We always try to be professional and do the right thing but the current situation is getting ridiculous.