12 U.S.C. § 3419
Suspension of limitations
If any individual files a motion or application under this chapter which has the effect of delaying the access of a Government authority to financial records pertaining to such individual, any applicable statute of limitations shall be deemed to be tolled for the period extending from the date such motion or application was filed until the date upon which the motion or application is decided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1997–2004 · leading case: United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000). “This is in contrast to the tolling provision in the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 USC § 3419 , which was at issue in Dowty .”
United States v. Dowty, 48 M.J. 102 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “12 USC § 3419 . If the period of the litigation in federal district court is excluded, the charges were timely filed with the summary court-martial convening authority within the 5-year period provided in Article 43(b)(1).”
Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation v. United States, 364 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “, 12 U.S.C. § 3419 (2000); 15 U.S.C. § 6606 (e)(4) (2000); 21 U.”
United States v. Spann, 51 M.J. 89 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “The ambiguities concerning the language, legislative history, and judicial interpretation of § 10606 fall far short of the clarity that we found in applying the tolling provision in the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 USC § 3419 , to proceedings under the UCMJ.”
United States v. McElhaney, 50 M.J. 819 (A.F.C.C.A. 1999). “The case involved an officer in the naval reserve who was accused of submitting fraudulent claims for services to the Navy on behalf of his privately owned company.”
United States v. Dowty, 57 M.J. 707 (N.M.C.C.A. 2002). “We determined that the relevant provisions of the Right to Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3419 , tolled the running of the 5-year statute of limitations.”
United States v. Dowty, 46 M.J. 845 (N.M.C.C.A. 1997). “12 U.S.C. § 3419 . Nor is there any dispute that the period required for resolution of the appellee’s application and motion under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, by the District Court for the District of Columbia, totaled 8 months and 2 days.”
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.