Does the separation of FinCEN, and The Federal Reserve protect the integrity of a representative democracy? From my understanding, FinCEN is controlled or heavily influenced by the UN.  In addition, The Federal Reserve is not a governmental body, yet it has appointees from the current administration.

I'm concerned that a democratic influence in economics (currency, M1, etc) could remove the "purity of intent" of an election, or the policy resulting from an election. 


What have we learned from FinCEN, the IMF, and The Federal Reserve in relation to maintaining the integrity of the democratic voice? 


I suspect that if the two are combined, the democratic "wants" will re-prioritize its actions based financial matters, not the democratic consensus.  If taken to an extreme, this lack of "democratic consent" consensus could result in chaos, anarchy, or other frightening outcomes. 


What review boards, governance controls, or other systems prevent the academic research of financial systems from contaminating democratic outcomes?
Your understanding is wrong. FinCEN is a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury. The director reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

Further, the Federal Reserve system is also a government entity. It was established under the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, is an independent agency of the federal government. Its members are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The system's structure was deliberately designed by Congress to grant it independence in its conduct of monetary policy, with the intent of minimizing political interference in monetary policy. However, this independence was granted and is maintained via democratic consensus.