FINTRAC describes its published indicators as potential red flags that could point to something unusual in the absence of a reasonable explanation — not proof of wrongdoing on their own. The indicators were built from years of reviewing real money-laundering cases, high-quality suspicious transaction reports, and international guidance from bodies like the Financial Action Task Force, so they reflect patterns that have actually shown up in real investigations, not a theoretical checklist. The right way to use them is as prompts for a follow-up question or a closer look, not as an automatic trigger for a report.
This distinction matters because treating every indicator as automatically suspicious would make ordinary, legitimate transactions look problematic constantly — a parent gifting a down payment, a self-employed client with an unusual but explainable income pattern, a client who's simply private about their finances. The skill this module teaches is recognizing when an indicator, especially in combination with others, is genuinely worth a closer look rather than a reflexive report.
The most consistently cited category across FINTRAC's guidance concerns how a client explains where their money came from. A client who refuses to identify the source of a down payment or closing funds, or who provides an explanation that's false, vague, or doesn't hold together under a reasonable follow-up question, is exhibiting one of the clearest indicators FINTRAC publishes. So is a substantial cash down payment financed through an unusual private lender or an offshore account with no clear connection to the client's ordinary financial life.
A deposit or down payment paid by cheque from a third party who has no apparent connection to the transaction is a related pattern worth noting specifically — not because third-party gifts are unusual (they're extremely common and entirely legitimate in Canadian home buying) but because a third party with no explained relationship to the buyer, contributing funds with no documented reason, is a different situation than a parent's gift letter that's straightforward and consistent with the family relationship already established in the file.
A purchase conducted largely through someone other than the actual buyer — a person other than the purchaser or seller handling the majority of the transaction's activity — is a pattern FINTRAC specifically flags, particularly when there's no clear reason the named buyer isn't handling their own transaction. Similarly, a buyer acting through an associate's or relative's name specifically to obscure who's really behind the purchase is a recognized indicator, distinct from the ordinary and legitimate practice of co-signing or joint ownership between family members who are openly named on the file.
Inconsistencies in identification documents — a name that varies across different documents in the same file, or identifying details that don't quite match between the ID and other paperwork — are also worth treating as a prompt to look closer rather than an administrative annoyance to smooth over. So is a client who's unable or unusually reluctant to provide the identifying information a normal file requires, once accounting for the ordinary discomfort many people feel about sharing financial details.
Some indicators show up in the shape of the transaction itself rather than in anything a client says. Purchasing a property without ever viewing it, or making multiple property purchases in a short window with little evident concern for location, condition, or price, is a pattern FINTRAC flags — most legitimate buyers care quite a bit about the property they're purchasing. A property resold shortly after purchase at a price significantly different from what was paid is another one, particularly when there's no market explanation, like a fast-moving local market, that would otherwise account for the swing.
A specific and fairly distinctive indicator worth knowing: a client who negotiates a purchase at or above the asking price, but asks for a lower value to be recorded on the actual transaction documents, offering to make up the difference “under the table.” This shows up often enough in FINTRAC's guidance to be treated as a named pattern rather than a one-off oddity, and any request along these lines is a clear signal to stop and escalate rather than accommodate.
A single indicator, especially a mild one, often has an entirely innocent explanation and doesn't call for an immediate report — a client can genuinely be private about their finances without being engaged in anything improper. What should prompt escalation to your brokerage's compliance officer is a combination of indicators, or a single indicator strong enough to stand on its own, like a direct request to misstate a transaction price. Escalation doesn't mean accusing the client of anything; it means handing the observation to the person responsible for deciding whether a suspicious transaction report is warranted, which is exactly the kind of judgment call the compliance officer role exists to make.
Whatever the outcome, documenting what you noticed and when — in plain, factual language, without speculation about motive — is what makes the file defensible later, whether or not a report is ultimately filed. A note that simply says “client declined to explain source of $40,000 cash deposit despite being asked directly” is more useful, and safer, than either ignoring the moment entirely or writing something that reads as an accusation rather than an observation.
A client's parent wires a documented $30,000 gift for a down payment, with a signed gift letter and a clear family relationship on file. Should this be treated the same as a red flag under FINTRAC's third-party funding indicator?
FINTRAC's own framing is explicit that indicators point to something unusual in the absence of a reasonable explanation — a parental gift, disclosed with a signed gift letter and a clear, explained family relationship, is exactly the reasonable explanation that distinguishes ordinary third-party funding from the pattern the indicator actually targets: an unexplained contribution from someone with no apparent connection to the deal. Treating every third-party contribution as automatically suspicious would flag one of the most common, legitimate sources of Canadian down payments, and a gift letter is relevant well beyond underwriting — it's part of the documented explanation that resolves the indicator rather than triggering it.
The intro and first module are free to read. Add your name and email once and the rest of this course opens — along with every other course on the site. No card, no trial.
Already unlocked on another device?
