12 C.F.R. § 353.1
Purpose and scope
The purpose of this part is to ensure that an FDIC supervised institution files a Suspicious Activity Report when it detects a known or suspected criminal violation of federal law or a suspicious transaction related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. This part applies to all FDIC supervised institutions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1990–2018 · leading case: California Pac. Bank v. Fdic, 885 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2018).
California Pac. Bank v. Fdic, 885 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2018). “FDIC 33 Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 353.1 , an insured state nonmember bank must file a SAR whenever it suspects “a known or suspected criminal violation of federal law or a suspicious transaction related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.”
United States v. LBS Bank-New York, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 496 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “did not report to the Internal Revenue Service and other required federal agencies the attempted commission and commission of criminal violations of the United States Code involving or affecting the assets or affairs of defendant LBS BANK — NEW YORK, INC., that is, the attempted…”
Walls v. First State Bank of Miami, 900 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. App. 1995). “12 C.F.R. § 353.1 (a)(1) (1994). 3 . 'The Bank officers operated under a policy that required them to obtain permission from the board of directors before disclosing any Bank or customer information to outside entities.”
First State Bank of Floodwood v. Jubie, 847 F. Supp. 695 (D. Minnesota 1993). “See, Title 12 C.F.R. § 353.1 . We agree, although we find the privilege to be absolute and not merely conditional.”
Crowley v. F.D.I.C., 841 F. Supp. 33 (D.N.H. 1993). “” 12 C.F.R. § 353.1 (a). The bank is required to “report the apparent violation to the appropriate field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the appropriate office of the United States Attorney, and to the regional director (Division of Bank Supervision (DBS)) of…”
Crystal Tillman v. M & I Bank, David Kohlmeyer, Christine A. Seitz, & Racine Cnty., 30 F.3d 136 (7th Cir. 1994). “1818 , 1819 and 12 C.F.R. 353.1, stating that between May 9 and June 15, 1988, Tillman withdrew more than $2,000 from various customer accounts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.