recognizing that in passing the BSA, "Congress was concerned about a serious and widespread use of foreign financial institutions, located in jurisdictions with strict laws of secrecy as to bank activity, for the purpose of violating or evading domestic criminal tax, and regulatory enactments."
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that in passing the BSA, "Congress was concerned about a serious and widespread use of foreign financial institutions, located in jurisdictions with strict laws of secrecy as to bank activity, for the purpose of violating or evading domestic criminal tax, and regulatory enactments."
- holding that the first amendment does not create a per se rule forbidding disclosure of contributor names in all ___ __ situations
- holding that self-incrimination claim based on forced reporting not ripe because “[w]e cannot, on the basis of supposition that privilege will be claimed and not honored, proceed now to adjudicate the constitutionality under the Fifth Amendment” (citation omitted)
- holding that regulations for the reporting of financial transactions by financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 abridge no Fourth Amendment rights of such institutions
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by United States v. Mitchell Miller, Susan McDuffie Weeks, and John Henry McDuffie, 508 F.2d 588 (1975)
We disagree with the panel holding that such a result is either required or supported by California Bankers Association v. Shultz, 1974, 416 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 39 L.Ed.2d 812.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Powell,
with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion, but add a word concerning the Act’s domestic reporting requirements.
The Act confers broad authority on the Secretary to require reports of domestic monetary transactions from the financial institutions and parties involved! 31 U. S. C. §§ 1081 and 1082. The implementing regulations, however, require only that the financial institution “file a report on each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, , through, or to such financial institution, which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.” 31 CFR § 103.22 (italics- added). As the Court properly recognizes, we must analyze plaintiffs’ contentions in the context of the Act as narrowed by the regulations. Ante, at 64. From this perspective, I agree that the regulations do not constitute "an impermissible infringement of any constitutional rigfrt. .
A significant extension of the regulations’ reporting requirements, however, would pose substantial and difficult constitutional questions for me. In their full reach, the reports apparently authorized by the open-ended language of the Act touch upon intimate areas of an individual’s personal affairs. Financial transactions can reveal much about a person’s activities, associations, *79 and beliefs. At some point, governmental-intrusion upon these areas would implicate legitimate expectations of privacy. Moreover, the potential for abuse is particularly acute where, as here, the. legislative scheme permits access to this information without invocation of the judicial process. In such instances, the important responsibility for balancing societal and individual interests is left to unreviewed executive discretion, rather than the scrutiny of a neutral magistrate. United States v. U. S. District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 316-317 (1972). As the issues are presently framed, however, I am in accord with the Court’s disposition of the matter.