Bank Secrecy Act
Sponsor
Rep. Wright Patman (D-TX)
What It Says It Does
The declaration of purpose at 31 U.S.C. 5311 states that the purpose of the subchapter is to require certain reports or records where they have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. That language has been amended twice since enactment. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act inserted the phrase covering the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism. Pub. L. 107-56, title III, section 358(a), October 26, 2001. The section was restructured again in 2020 to add money laundering prevention, tracking of criminal proceeds, risk assessment, and information sharing. The purpose Congress stated in 1970 is not the purpose the statute states today.
What It Authorizes
Title II, Section 202
Section 202 of Title II, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5313(a), provides that when a domestic financial institution is involved in a transaction for the payment, receipt, or transfer of United States coins or currency in an amount or under circumstances the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes by regulation, the institution shall file a report on the transaction. The statute sets no dollar threshold. The Secretary sets the threshold, the covered transactions, and the manner of reporting by regulation. The current threshold is transactions in currency of more than 10,000 dollars, set at 31 C.F.R. 1010.311.
What It Touches
Constitutional Tension
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be reasonable and that warrants issue on probable cause. The Act compels financial institutions to create and retain records of customer transactions and to report currency transactions to the government, which may then obtain those records by subpoena without a warrant, without probable cause, and without notice to the customer. The question is whether compelled creation and disclosure of those records is a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has answered twice, both times for the government. In California Bankers Association v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), the Court upheld the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, with Justices Douglas and Marshall dissenting on Fourth Amendment grounds and Justice Brennan dissenting on the ground that the Act granted the Secretary impermissibly broad power. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), decided April 21, 1976, the Court held seven to two that a depositor has no Fourth Amendment interest in records held by his bank, because information voluntarily conveyed to a third party in the ordinary course of business carries no legitimate expectation of privacy. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented. Miller established the third party doctrine. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) declined to extend that doctrine to historical cell site location information, five to four, but did not overrule Miller.
A court considered this challenge and ruled for the government.
Sunset and Renewal
No sunset clause.
No sunset clause. The Act has never required reauthorization. It has been amended repeatedly, including by the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-56, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-283.
Status verified September 2026.