12 U.S.C. § 3411

Duty of financial institutions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon receipt of a request for financial records made by a Government authority under section 3405 or 3407 of this title, the financial institution shall, unless otherwise provided by law, proceed to assemble the records requested and must be prepared to deliver the records to the Government authority upon receipt of the certificate required under section 3403(b) of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Marshall Kenneth Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, Schofield Branch, 295 F.3d 966 (1st Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marshall Kenneth Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, Schofield Branch, 295 F.3d 966 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 12 U.S.C. § 3411 . The Bank filed an answer denying it had violated the RFPA, and moved for judgment on the pleadings.”

Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310 (M.D. Penn. 1994). “12 U.S.C. § 3411 . Section 3403(b) conditions the release of financial records on the provision of a certificate of compliance.”

Preston State Bank, F/K/A Dallas City Bank v. Roach, John, in His Off. Capacity as Collin Cnty. DA, & Collin Cnty., Texas, 443 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2014). “” 12 U.S.C. § 3411 (2014) (duty of financial institutions to comply with government request for financial records); 12 U.”

Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Haw. 2003). “Moreover, if the section 3413(e) exception applied, there was no reason to obtain a certificate of compliance under 12 U.S.C. § 3411 because “nothing in [the RFPA] shall apply where records are sought” in litigation between the Government and the customer under section 3413(e).”

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 575 F. Supp. 1219 (E.D. Pa. 1983). “See 12 U.S.C. § 3411 . Section 1109 only relieves the Government, and not the institution, from an obligation to serve copies of subpoenas and requests on customers.”

Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 85 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Haw. 2000). “It did not, however, comply with the specific provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 3411 and 3412. Flowers asserts that First Hawaiian violated the RFPA by not complying with statutory notice provisions.”

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.