12 U.S.C. § 3405
Administrative subpena and summons
A Government authority may obtain financial records under section 3402(2) of this title pursuant to an administrative subpena or summons otherwise authorized by law only if—(1) there is reason to believe that the records sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry;(2) a copy of the subpena or summons has been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpena or summons was served on the financial institution together with the following notice which shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the law enforcement inquiry:“Records or information concerning your transactions held by the financial institution named in the attached subpena or summons are being sought by this (agency or department) in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.] for the following purpose: If you desire that such records or information not be made available, you must:
“1. Fill out the accompanying motion paper and sworn statement or write one of your own, stating that you are the customer whose records are being requested by the Government and either giving the reasons you believe that the records are not relevant to the legitimate law enforcement inquiry stated in this notice or any other legal basis for objecting to the release of the records.
“2. File the motion and statement by mailing or delivering them to the clerk of any one of the following United States district courts:
.
“3. Serve the Government authority requesting the records by mailing or delivering a copy of your motion and statement to .
“4. Be prepared to come to court and present your position in further detail.
“5. You do not need to have a lawyer, although you may wish to employ one to represent you and protect your rights.
If you do not follow the above procedures, upon the expiration of ten days from the date of service or fourteen days from the date of mailing of this notice, the records or information requested therein will be made available. These records may be transferred to other Government authorities for legitimate law enforcement inquiries, in which event you will be notified after the transfer.”; and
(3) ten days have expired from the date of service of the notice or fourteen days have expired from the date of mailing the notice to the customer and within such time period the customer has not filed a sworn statement and motion to quash in an appropriate court, or the customer challenge provisions of section 3410 of this title have been complied with.(Pub. L. 95–630, title XI, § 1105, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3699.)Editorial NotesReferences in TextThe Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, referred to in par. (2), is title XI of Pub. L. 95–630, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3697, which is classified generally to this chapter (§ 3401 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3401 of this title and Tables.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective DateSection effective upon the expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, see section 2101 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 375b of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Dowty, 48 M.J. 102 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
United States v. Dowty, 48 M.J. 102 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
· cites it 3× “See 12 USC § 3405 . In accordance with the statute, a copy of the subpoena was mailed to appellant’s last known address on August 1, 1994.”
State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 3405 (1988). About one-third of the 50 states have enacted a state equivalent of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.”
Nicksolat v. United States of Am. Dep't of Transp., 277 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 5× “§ 3401(8) (defining “law enforcement inquiry” as “a lawful investigation or official proceeding inquiring into a violation of, or failure to comply with, any criminal or civil statute or any regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto”).”
United States v. Alvin Frazin, United States of Am. v. Ronald Mark Miller, 780 F.2d 1461 (9th Cir. 1986).
“*1466 In the final version of the Act, Congress reduced the notice requirement to 10 days, 12 U.S.C. § 3405 , and provided for civil penalties against the government and financial institutions for obtaining or disclosing a customer’s financial information without the requisite…”
Jodi Hohman v. Maurice Eadie, 894 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2018).
“12 U.S.C. § 3405 . However, the Act provides an exception, which states: "Nothing in this chapter prohibits the disclosure of financial records in accordance with procedures authorized by [the Internal Revenue Code].”
McDonough v. Widnall, 891 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Colo. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The memorandum to McDonough purported to give her notice, pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA or Act), 12 U.S.C. § 3405 , of the procedures by which she could seek to block disclosure of the financial records sought by the Air Force.”
State Ex Rel. Brant v. Bank of Am., 31 P.3d 952 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 2× “at 831 (citing 12 U.S.C. § 3405 [1988]). Schultz also observed that although about one-third of the 50 states had enacted a state equivalent of the RFPA, the Kansas Legislature had not done so.”
United States v. Chris Buchanan, 985 F.2d 1372 (8th Cir. 1993).
“That statutory scheme provides that no government authority can gain access to a financial institution’s customer records unless the customer has authorized it, and the records are disclosed pursuant to an administrative subpoena or summons, a search warrant, or a judicial…”
Hancock v. Marshall, 86 F.R.D. 209 (D.D.C. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 3410(a). If the customer’s motion satisfies the threshold standards set forth in 12 U.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 995 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1998).
“Defendants’ remaining counterclaim is based on alleged violations of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA), 12 U.S.C. § 3405 . Plaintiff asserts that this should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”
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.