Month: September 2025

(Westlaw) April D. Smith and Sean Buckley of Adams & Reese discuss a new anti-money laundering rule that requires reporting to FinCEN for all-cash residential real estate transactions involving legal entities or trusts.

What do you need to know?

• A new federal rule requires mandatory reporting to FinCEN for all-cash residential real estate transactions involving legal entities or trusts, but not direct individual buyers.
• The rule targets non-financed (all-cash or privately financed) transfers of residential property to entities or trusts, with specific exemptions for certain regulated entities, trusts, and routine transfers.
• Real estate professionals involved in closings must identify the reporting party, collect detailed beneficial ownership information, and file reports within 3060 days, while updating processes and training staff to ensure compliance.

A new nationwide anti-money laundering rule introduces mandatory reporting to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) for specific all-cash residential real estate transactions involving legal entities and trusts.

This regulation, known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers” (https://bit.ly/3USTNYJ), will go into effect on Dec. 1, 2025.

Importantly, the rule does not apply to transfers made directly to individuals; it is triggered only when the transferee is a legal entity (such as a corporation, LLC, partnership, or estate) or a trust. All-cash and non-bank financed transactions are the primary focus of the new rule as they present higher risks for money laundering.

The new rule directly impacts a range of real estate professionals and businesses involved in closings and settlements, including settlement agents, title insurance companies and agents, escrow agents, attorneys involved in closings, and other professionals performing specified functions in the transfer process.

FinCEN has published a fact sheet (https://bit.ly/466qEhX) and FAQs (https://bit.ly/4lPhDzn) on the new rule.

What constitutes a reportable transfer?

A transfer is considered reportable under the new rule if it meets four specific criteria:

1. Property type: The transaction involves residential real property in the U.S. This includes single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and cooperative units. Importantly, it also covers entire apartment buildings designed for one to four families, as well as vacant land where the transferee intends to build a residential structure. Even mixed-use properties with a residential component can be subject to the rule.
2. Financing: The transfer must be non-financed. This means the transaction does not involve a loan from a financial institution that has AML program and Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) obligations. All-cash sales are a prime example. The rule also treats transactions financed by a private lender without such obligations as non-financed, making them potentially reportable.
3. Transferee: The recipient of the property must be a transferee entity or a transferee trust. A transferee entity is a corporation, partnership, LLC, or similar legal vehicle. A transferee trust includes most trusts and similar foreign legal arrangements. There are specific exemptions for highly regulated entities, such as banks, insurance companies, public utilities, and entities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Similarly, some trusts, like statutory trusts and those where the trustee is a securities reporting issuer, are exempt.
4. No applicable exemption: The transaction cannot fall under one of the specified exemptions. The rule outlines several non-reportable transfers, including those resulting from death, divorce, bankruptcy, or court supervision. A qualified intermediary for a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code is also exempt.

Who is the ‘reporting person’?

Only one business or professional is responsible for filing the Real Estate Report for each transaction. The “reporting person” is determined by a cascade system:

1. The person listed as the closing or settlement agent on the closing/settlement statement.
2. If none, the person who prepares the closing/settlement statement.
3. If none, the person who files the deed or other instrument with the recordation office.
4. If none, the person underwriting the owner’s title insurance policy.
5. If none, the person disbursing the greatest amount of funds in connection with the transfer.
6. If none, the person providing an evaluation of the title status.
7. If none, the person preparing the deed or other legal instrument transferring ownership.

Alternatively, professionals involved in the transaction may enter into a written designation agreement to assign reporting responsibility to another party in the cascade.

What must be disclosed?

The reporting person must file a Real Estate Report with FinCEN containing information identifying the reporting person, details of the residential real property being transferred, information about the transferor (seller), information about the transferee entity or trust, and identities of individuals representing the transferee entity or trust in the transaction.

The Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) for the transferee entity or trust includes the name, date of birth, residential address, citizenship, taxpayer identification number, and total consideration paid for the property and details of payments made.

• For entities: Any individual who, directly or indirectly, exercises substantial control over the entity or owns/controls at least 25% of its ownership interests.
• For trusts: Any individual who is a trustee, has authority to dispose of trust assets, is a beneficiary with the right to demand or withdraw substantially all assets, is a grantor/settlor with revocation rights, or is the beneficial owner of an entity/trust holding one of these positions.

The report must be filed no later than 30 calendar days after the date of closing, or the last day of the month following the month in which the closing occurred, whichever is later. This gives reporting persons a period of 30 to 60 days. Reporting persons are required to retain copies of any designation agreements and written beneficial ownership certifications for five years. However, they are not required to keep a copy of the actual FinCEN report itself.

Exemptions: What transactions are not reportable?

The rule provides several exemptions for lower-risk or routine transfers, including:

• Grants, transfers, or revocations of easements.
• Transfers resulting from death (by will, trust, operation of law, or beneficiary designation).
• Transfers incident to divorce or dissolution of marriage/civil union.
• Transfers to a bankruptcy estate.
• Transfers supervised by a U.S. court.
• Transfers for no consideration by an individual (alone or with spouse) to a trust of which they or their spouse are the settlor/grantor.
• Transfers to a qualified intermediary for a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.
• Transfers for which there is no reporting person.

Additionally, certain regulated entities and trusts are exempt as transferees, including:

• Securities reporting issuers.
• Governmental authorities.
• Banks, credit unions, depository institution holding companies.
• Money services businesses.
• Broker-dealers, securities exchanges, clearing agencies.
• Insurance companies and state-licensed insurance producers.
• Commodity Exchange Act registered entities.
• Public utilities, financial market utilities, registered investment companies.
• Subsidiaries of exempted entities or trusts.

Conclusion

The new rule continues a trend in the federal government’s increased efforts to combat money laundering and financial crimes. Historically, the U.S. residential real estate market has been susceptible to exploitation by illicit actors seeking to launder money through all-cash transactions often using legal entities or trusts to obscure their identities.

Most routine transfers to individuals are not covered, but transfers to entities or trusts should be carefully reviewed for applicability and exemptions. All professionals involved in closings and settlements of residential real estate to entities or trusts should familiarize themselves with the rules, assess their exposure, and prepare for reporting and recordkeeping obligations.

Real estate professionals should begin reviewing their transaction processes, updating closing documentation, and training staff to ensure compliance by the effective date of Dec. 1, 2025.

By April D. Smith, Esq., and Sean Buckley, Esq., Adams & Reese

April D. Smith serves as the real estate team leader at Adams & Reese, and she is a partner in the Mobile, Alabama, office. For 20 years, she has represented TIMOs, REITs, financial institutions, businesses, and individuals in a wide range of transactions, including timberland and commercial property acquisitions and sales, timberland and commercial financing, mergers and acquisitions, and business sales. She can be reached at april.smith@arlaw.com. Sean Buckley is a member of the firm’s corporate services practice group and a partner in the Houston office. He advises clients on a wide array of corporate matters, including the purchase and sale of equity and assets, and in a diverse array of industries, including real estate transactions, entity selection and formation, corporate governance, and franchise opportunity matters. He can be reached at sean.buckley@arlaw.com.

(Westlaw) The Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5 said it has established a new task force to strengthen the enforcement division’s efforts to identify and combat cross-border fraud, particularly violations of federal securities laws involving foreign companies.

Focusing on international fraud investigations, the Cross-Border Task Force will crack down on market manipulation schemes, such as “pump-and-dump” and “ramp-and-dump” activities that harm U.S. investors. It will also investigate potential violations by foreign companies operating in jurisdictions 6 such as China 6 where governmental control and other factors create unique risks for investors.

The task force will also focus enforcement efforts on auditors, underwriters, and other gatekeepers who facilitate foreign companies’ access to U.S. capital markets.

In a statement, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the commission will not tolerate companies, intermediaries, gatekeepers, or exploitative traders who attempt to circumvent U.S. investor protections across international borders.

“This new task force will consolidate SEC investigative efforts and allow the SEC to use every available tool to combat transnational fraud,” he added.

The SEC’s divisions of Corporation Finance, Examinations, Economic and Risk Analysis, and Trading and Markets, as well as its International Affairs Office, have also been asked by Atkins to recommend additional measures, such as new disclosure guidance and rule changes, to strengthen protections for U.S. investors.

(Reuters) Wall Street’s top regulator on Wednesday criticized two recent European laws on companies’ disclosures of their environmental, social and governance impacts, underscoring the shift in U.S. financial regulation since President Donald Trump took office.

In an address to an event held in Paris by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paul Atkins, chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said the laws could impose costs on investors and called on European authorities to focus on promoting free enterprise instead.

“I have significant concerns with the prescriptive nature of these laws and their burdens on U.S. companies, the costs of which are potentially passed on to American investors and customers,” Atkins said, according to prepared remarks.

Though Atkins noted recent changes to ease the laws’ burdens, he said more work was necessary, adding that Europe should focus on cutting firms’ reporting obligations “rather than pursuing ends that are unrelated to the economic success of companies” or their shareholders.

The European Union last year adopted a law, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, requiring larger companies to verify whether their supply chains use forced labor or cause environmental damage, and to address this if they do.

However, this was watered down to win the support of some EU members.

Separately, the European Commission in February proposed looser environmental and corporate sustainability standards under the EU’s corporate sustainability reporting directive, which requires companies to disclose information about their environmental and social impacts to investors and consumers.

(Syndigate) Bankruptcy Ponzi Scheme Nathan Fuller’s bid to erase debts collapsed because the court found he ran Privvy Investments as a Ponzi scheme, hid assets, and lied under oath. Journalist Hassan Shittu Journalist Hassan Shittu About Author

Hassan, a Cryptonews.com journalist with 6+ years of experience in Web3 journalism, brings deep knowledge across Crypto, Web3 Gaming, NFTs, and Play-to-Earn sectors. His work has appeared in…

Author Profile Share Copied Last updated: September 10, 2025

The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) has secured a judgment denying bankruptcy protection to a Texas man who attempted to evade more than $12.5 million in debts linked to a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme.

On August 1, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a default judgment against Nathan Fuller, owner of Privvy Investments LLC. Fuller had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October 2024, shortly after a state court appointed a receiver to seize his assets following investor lawsuits.

But federal investigators found that Fuller concealed assets, falsified documents, and lied under oath in an effort to avoid repaying creditors.

Bankruptcy Court Bars Crypto Scheme Operator From Discharging $12.5M

According to the USTP, Fuller used Privvy Investments to solicit funds under the guise of crypto investments, only to divert investor money for personal use.

Records show that he spent heavily on luxury items and gambling trips and purchased a nearly $1 million home for his ex-wife, who was also involved in the business. Despite the separation, Fuller continued to reside at the property.

U.S. Trustee Kevin Epstein, who oversees Region 7 covering the Southern District of Texas, said the ruling underscores the program’s stance against fraud. “Fraudsters seeking to whitewash their schemes will not find sanctuary in bankruptcy,” Epstein said in a statement.

“The USTP remains vigilant for cases filed by dishonest debtors, who threaten the integrity of the bankruptcy system.”

Investigators alleged that Fuller not only concealed extensive assets but also failed to maintain records and submitted false testimony in both his personal bankruptcy filing and the one filed on behalf of Privvy.

At one point, Fuller was held in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders. During proceedings, he admitted to operating Privvy as a Ponzi scheme, fabricating documentation, and providing false statements designed to obstruct the work of the court-appointed Chapter 7 trustee.

After failing to respond to the USTP’s complaint, the court entered a default judgment in favor of the agency. As a result, Fuller remains personally liable for his debts, including more than $12.5 million in unsecured obligations listed in his filings. Creditors are now free to continue collection efforts against him.

The USTP said its mission is to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system for debtors, creditors, and the public. The agency emphasized that the outcome in Fuller’s case demonstrates its commitment to holding dishonest actors accountable.

The judgment adds another chapter to the mounting scrutiny around crypto-linked investment schemes. While legitimate blockchain firms continue to raise capital and build infrastructure, fraudulent ventures such as Fuller’s highlight the risks facing investors.

Earlier this year, web3 wallet infrastructure firm Privy, a separate company unrelated to Fuller’s operation, closed a $15 million funding round led by Ribbit Capital, bringing its total raised to more than $40 million.

The company’s wallet-enabled stack powers projects like Hyperliquid, Farcaster, OpenSea, and Blackbird, serving over 50 million accounts across payments, DeFi, and gaming.

The juxtaposition of these developments reflects a maturing crypto sector still grappling with trust issues stemming from fraud.

Fraud Shadows Over Crypto Sector as Similar Cases Highlight Investor Risks

In a similar case, on July 8, San Jose-based fintech firm Linqto filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas, exposing deep cracks in its business model.

Once marketed as a gateway for everyday investors to buy pre-IPO shares in tech giants like Ripple and CoreWeave, the platform now faces allegations that customers may never have actually owned the shares they believed they purchased.

The company listed assets and liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion, with more than 10,000 creditors potentially affected.

Chief Restructuring Officer Jeffrey Stein said “years of mismanagement” and securities law violations dating back to 2020 left Linqto possibly insolvent, further shaking confidence in retail access to private markets.

Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday a civil forfeiture action to seize over $5 million in Bitcoin stolen through SIM swap attacks.

Prosecutors said attackers hijacked victims’ phone numbers between October 2022 and March 2023, intercepting authentication codes to drain crypto wallets.

The stolen funds were allegedly funneled through multiple wallets and eventually into an account at Stake.com, an online casino.

Investigators accuse the perpetrators of using circular transactions to disguise the source of the Bitcoin before consolidation.

Follow us on Google News Trending News RecommendedPopular Crypto TopicsPrice Predictions

• New ChatGPT Predicts the Price of XRP, Pepe and Solana by the End of 2025
• China’s DeepSeek AI Predicts the Price of XRP, Ethereum and Pi Coin by the End of 2025
• Google’s Gemini AI Predicts the Price of XRP, Solana and Pepe by the End of 2025
• XRP Today’s Hot Analysis: Regulators Retreat, XRP in the Spotlight, XRP Bullish Pattern Points to $15
• Bitcoin Price Prediction: Crypto CEO Claims Satoshi Could Return Due to ‘Quantum’ Threat 6 What’s Going On?

(Westlaw) A Jacksonville, Florida-based engineering recruiting business can include a provision in its Chapter 11 plan imposing a temporary injunction to shield its owner from lawsuits during the plan, a bankruptcy judge has ruled.

In re Engineering Recruiting Experts LLC, No. 24-3292, 2025 WL 2506031 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2025).

Overruling an objection from the U.S. Trustee to confirmation of Engineering Recruiting Experts LLC’s proposed plan, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jason A. Burgess of the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 2 determined that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit temporary third-party injunctions.

Plan protects owner

Christopher McHatton is Engineering’s owner, the opinion said.

After filing for Chapter 11 relief, the company proposed a plan that paid unsecured creditors $55,000 over five years from contributions that included $25,000 from McHatton personally.

The plan called for extending the automatic stay to protect McHatton during the bankruptcy if he remained with the company.

“Mr. McHatton is the debtor’s founder, managing member, sole shareholder, and only employee that brings in new clients and business,” Judge Burgess said.

Temporary injunction allowed

The U.S. Trustee objected that the plan’s injunction was contrary to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, 603 U.S. 204 (2024), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize Chapter 11 plans to impose a permanent injunction that extinguishes claims against nondebtor third parties without the claimants’ consent.

Noting that the Supreme Court said its decision was narrow, Judge Burgess concluded that it was limited to nonconsensual third-party permanent releases rather than temporary injunctions.

Judge Burgess said Purdue Pharma involved Bankruptcy Code Section 1123(b)(6), 11 U.S.C.A. A7 1123(b)(6), which is a catchall phrase allowing plans to include any “appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions” of the Bankruptcy Code.

The protection provided for McHatton in Engineering’s proposed plan was based on code Section 1123(a)(5), 11 U.S.C.A. A7 1123(a)(5), which the Supreme Court did not consider in Purdue Pharma.

Judge Burgess found Section 1123(a)(5) to be distinguishable from Section 1123(b)(6).

“Section 1123(a) outlines mandatory provisions to be included in a plan,” the judge said.

Section 1123(a)(5) says “a plan shall provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation” and then provides a nonexclusive list of examples.

“Unlike the catchall provision in Section 1123(b)(6), which follows a detailed and descriptive list, Section 1123(a)(5) begins with a mandate and includes examples of providing ‘adequate means for the plan’s implementation.'” Judge Burgess said.

Under the circumstances presented by Engineering’s plan, the judge found that protecting McHatton was necessary for the plan’s successful implementation.

He then found that issuing the temporary injunction was warranted because McHatton and Engineering had such a shared identity that a suit against McHatton was essentially a suit against Engineering, and any third-party action against McHatton would have an adverse impact on Engineering’s ability to reorganize.

The judge also said that Engineering established a substantial likelihood that it would complete its proposed plan and receive a discharge.

He found that Engineering would be irreparably harmed if the injunction was not issued, and that such harm outweighed the harm the injunction would cause to third parties.

“Given the plan provisions that will toll the applicable statute of limitations, the creditors will be able to pursue their claims against Mr. McHatton when the debtor receives a discharge after completing the five-year unsecured payment schedule,” Judge Burgess said.

The five-year delay may be beneficial to creditors because a successful reorganization may enable McHatton to be better situated to pay his debts, he added.

Finally, the court said the proposed injunction would serve the public interest by facilitating Engineering’s continued operations.

Bryan Mickler of Mickler & Mickler in Jacksonville, Florida, represented the debtor.

By David J. Light, Esq.

(Westlaw) A divided federal appeals court has partially reinstated a proposed class action alleging that Robinhood Markets Inc.’s initial public offering documents concealed declines in its business after the “meme stocks” frenzy of 2021.

Sodha et al. v. Robinhood Markets Inc. et al., No. 24-1036, 2025 WL 2487954 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).

A California federal judge applied the wrong standard in considering whether Robinhood had a duty to disclose interim financial results during the run-up to the IPO, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision Aug. 29.

The majority vacated a lower court’s dismissal of some claims in the suit without expressing an opinion as to whether they satisfied pleading standards.

‘Fad trading’ ends

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Robinhood’s IPO documents concealed its dependence upon “fad trading” of stocks such as GameStop and the cryptocurrency Dogecoin as a source of revenue.

The registration statement and prospectus filed in July 2021 contained historical data showing that Robinhood’s focus on small and nontraditional investors fueled enormous growth from 2019 to early 2021, the second amended complaint says.

But the documents omitted preliminary results for the second quarter of 2021 that showed significant declines in trading volumes and revenues, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that Robinhood had a duty to disclose “highly unusual” declines pursuant to Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. A7 229.303(b)(2)(ii).

The regulation requires disclosure of known trends, uncertainties and events that are reasonably likely to impact a registrant’s sales, revenue or income from continuing operations.

The IPO documents also failed to disclose significant factors that made the offering risky or speculative, as required by Item 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. A7 229.105, the suit says.

The complaint asserts strict liability for misstatements and omissions in the offering documents under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. A7A7 77k and 77l(a)(2).

The District Court dismissed the suit in January 2024. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen said the Securities Act does not require disclosure of interim financial results or statements for a quarter that ended less than 45 days before the offering, unless they are extraordinary and indicative of larger future trends. Golubowski v. Robinhood Markets Inc., No. 21-cv-9767, 2024 WL 269507 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2024).

Wrong standard applied

Lead plaintiffs Vinod and Amee Sodha argued in a May 2024 opening brief to the 9th Circuit that the District Court applied the wrong standard for determining whether disclosure is required.

Instead of asking whether the omitted information was an extraordinary departure from past results, the court should have determined whether it was material, meaning that a reasonable investor would view the information as significantly altering the total mix of information available, the brief said.

The two-judge majority agreed. They rejected the approach of the District Court and the 1st Circuit that intra-quarter disclosures are required only when they represent an “extreme departure” from historical results.

According to the majority, the 2nd Circuit persuasively ruled in Stadnick v. Vivint Solar Inc., 861 F.3d 31 (2017), that the better standard was whether the information was material to investors.

The District Court also applied the wrong standard to claims under Item 303, which imposes a broader duty of disclosure than the materiality standard, the judges said.

However, the majority upheld the dismissal of claims based on Item 105, saying that the regulation did not require Robinhood to break down its revenue sources or quantify future risks.

U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson partially dissented from the majority’s ruling, saying there was “simply no basis” for the case to proceed.

Deborah Clark-Weintraub of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP argued the case for the appellants.

Kevin Orsini of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP argued for the appellees.

By Nicole Banas

(Reuters) A federal jury determined on Wednesday that Alphabet’s Google must pay $425 million for invading users’ privacy by continuing to collect data for millions of users who had switched off a tracking feature in their Google account.

The verdict comes after a trial in the federal court in San Francisco over allegations that Google over an eight-year period accessed users’ mobile devices to collect, save, and use their data, violating privacy assurances under its Web & App Activity setting.

The users had been seeking more than $31 billion in damages.

The jury found Google liable on two of the three claims of privacy violations brought by the plaintiffs. The jury found that Google had not acted with malice, meaning it was not entitled to any punitive damages.

Google plans to appeal, Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said.

“This decision misunderstands how our products work,” Castaneda said. “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.”

David Boies, a lawyer for the users, said in a statement they were “obviously very pleased with the verdict the jury returned.”

The class action lawsuit, filed in July 2020, claimed Google continued to collect users’ data even with the setting turned off through its relationship with apps such as Uber, Venmo and Meta’s Instagram that use certain Google analytics services.

At trial, Google said the collected data was “nonpersonal, pseudonymous, and stored in segregated, secured, and encrypted locations.” Google said the data was not associated with users’ Google accounts or any individual user’s identity.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg certified the case as a class action covering about 98 million Google users and 174 million devices.

Google has faced other privacy lawsuits, including one earlier this year where it paid nearly $1.4 billion in a settlement with Texas over allegations the company violated the state’s privacy laws.

Google in April 2024 agreed to destroy billions of data records of users’ private browsing activities to settle a lawsuit that alleged it tracked people who thought they were browsing privately, including in “Incognito” mode.

(Reuters) A U.S. judge on Wednesday held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to a deal between the Justice Department and Boeing that allows the planemaker to avoid prosecution on a charge stemming from two fatal 737 MAX plane crashes that killed 346 people.

Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas questioned the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant, but did not immediately issue a decision. He heard anguished objections from relatives of some of those killed in the crashes in Indonesia in 2018 and Ethiopia in 2019 to the non-prosecution agreement.

About two dozen relatives — some from as far as Indonesia, Africa, Europe and Canada — traveled to the Texas courthouse to argue that Boeing should not be allowed to avoid pleading guilty after last year agreeing to do so.

“It’s been going almost seven years since these crashes and we still haven’t gotten any justice,” said Ike Riffel, a California father whose two sons were killed in the Ethiopia crash.

Boeing will no longer face oversight by an independent monitor under the agreement but will hire a compliance consultant, and O’Connor asked why the government no longer thinks a monitor is needed.

A government lawyer said Boeing has improved and the Federal Aviation Administration is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argue O’Connor has no choice but to dismiss the case and cannot appoint a special prosecutor as some relatives have sought.

‘Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history.”

Boeing has now agreed to pay an additional $444.5 million into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6 million fine and over $455 million to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programs.

“The eyes of the world are on American to see if it is going to hold Boeing accountable,” said lawyer Paul Cassell, who represents some of the victims. “Essentially this is an effort by Boeing to bribe their way of out accountability.”

Boeing did not immediately comment.