Monday, April 27, 2026, 12:15 p.m
3485 readings
Gold coins issued by the US Mint/PHOTO:X@mining
An investigation by The New York Times suggests that some of the gold used by the United States Mint to produce investment coins may come from supply chains associated with illegal activities, including areas controlled by criminal groups in America Latin.
The investigation, carried out over the course of three years, followed the path of the gold from the extraction points to the refineries and suppliers. The journalists identified links between the metal traded on international markets and regions of Colombia controlled by the Clan del Golfo organization, designated by United States as a terrorist group.
According to the investigation, some of the gold would initially end up in Mexicoincluding through pawn shops, before being exported to intermediaries and later to suppliers of the Mint US. In this process, gold of different provenance would have been melted together, making it difficult to identify the exact origin.
US law requires the Mint to use domestically mined gold for investment coins. However, analysis of some commercial databases indicates that the institution’s suppliers imported significant amounts of gold from abroad. The practice of mixing the metal would allow it to be classified as “domestic” from a legal point of view, the journalists claim.
The investigation also shows that the institution has not systematically requested detailed information about the origin of the gold for more than two decades, according to a federal report released in 2024.
Reporters traced the supply chain to the town of Caucasia
Reporters followed the supply chain to the town of Caucasia, a mining center in northern Colombia. Extractive activities there are, according to sources, influenced by the Clan del Golfo, which allegedly charges miners and traders fees for access to the resources.
The gold mined would be sold to local middlemen, then exported and integrated into international trade chains that included US firms. Along the way, each link in the chain would depend on the checks carried out by previous partners.
The reactions of the institutions involved were divergent. The US Mint pointed to suppliers as responsible for verifying the origin of gold, while they cited reliance on middlemen. For its part, the US Treasury Department initially said existing practices did not violate the law.
Following the publication of the investigation, the Treasury announced a review of procedures and a change in standards, specifying that the gold used must come primarily from domestic sources, a wording that still allows the use of imported metal.
The case highlights the complexity of global precious metals supply chains and the difficulties of traceability in a sector where legal and illegal sources can become difficult to differentiate.
