U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 223— WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3505

Foreign records of regularly conducted ac­tivity

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) In a criminal proceeding in a court of the United States, a foreign record of regularly conducted activity, or a copy of such record, shall not be excluded as evidence by the hearsay rule if a foreign certification attests that—(A) such record was made, at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth, by (or from information transmitted by) a person with knowledge of those matters;(B) such record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity;(C) the business activity made such a record as a regular practice; and(D) if such record is not the original, such record is a duplicate of the original;unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.(2) A foreign certification under this section shall authenticate such record or duplicate.(b) At the arraignment or as soon after the arraignment as practicable, a party intending to offer in evidence under this section a foreign record of regularly conducted activity shall provide written notice of that intention to each other party. A motion opposing admission in evidence of such record shall be made by the opposing party and determined by the court before trial. Failure by a party to file such motion before trial shall constitute a waiver of objection to such record or duplicate, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.(c) As used in this section, the term—(1) “foreign record of regularly conducted activity” means a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, maintained in a foreign country;(2) “foreign certification” means a written declaration made and signed in a foreign country by the custodian of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity or another qualified person that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of that country; and(3) “business” includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1217(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2165.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1220, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2167, provided that: “This part [part K (§§ 1217–1220) of chapter XII of title II of Pub. L. 98–473, enacting this section and sections 3292, 3506, and 3507 of this title and amending section 3161 of this title] and the amendments made by this part shall take effect thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 12, 1984].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: United States v. Bertoli, 854 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Bertoli, 854 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1994). · cites it 46× “Motion to Suppress Use of Cayman Islands Documents By the Government Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3505 . 1038 3. Motion to Turn Over Personnel Files of Government Witnesses and Agents.”
United States v. Henry Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “As part of the Government’s case against Anekwu, the Government sought to introduce foreign business and public records pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3505 and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 902.”
United States v. David L. Tedder, United States of Am. v. David Lee Roberts, United States of Am. v. Ronald Benson Roberts, A/K/A \Bb\"", 801 F.2d 1437 (4th Cir. 1986). · cites it 7× “On October 12, 1984, after the deposition but prior to the beginning of trial, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3505 , effective November 12, 1984.”
United States v. Charly Sion Hagege, United States of Am. v. Charly Sion Hagege, 437 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 6× “On December 22, 2003, prior to the start of trial, the government moved for an order ruling that foreign records obtained from banks in Luxembourg and Israel would be admitted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3505 , based upon certificates of authenticity.”
United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 7× “The district court’s admission of foreign records of financial transactions into evidence violated 18 U.S.C. § 3505 , the Confrontation Clause, and a number of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
United States v. Mohamed Jawara, Also Known as Haji Jawara, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3505 . Jawara argues that § 3505 does not support the admission of these documents, and that they should have been excluded on hearsay and authenticity grounds.”
United States v. Chu Kong Yin, AKA Alfred Chu, 935 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “Finally, all four exhibits are supported by “a written declaration made and signed in a foreign country by the custodian of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity or *996 another qualified person.”
United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147) Ralph L. Levine (90-3148) Reuben Sturman (90-3151) & Melvin Kaminsky (90-3750), 951 F.2d 1466 (6th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “This practice, adopted by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3505 , dispenses with the necessity of calling a live witness to establish authenticity.”
United States v. Hing Shair Chan, 680 F. Supp. 521 (E.D.N.Y 1988). · cites it 8× “Application of section 3505 to this case would not impinge on the constitutional right to confront witnesses.”
United States v. Allan Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the court erred in admitting into evidence transcripts of tape recordings of telephone conversations intercepted by the Spanish National Police; (2) whether 18 U.S.C.A. § 3505 (West 1985) is constitutional; (3) whether…”
United States v. Ahmed Abukhatallah, 41 F.4th 608 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 3505 (a)(1). “In a criminal proceeding[,]” such a record “shall not be excluded as evidence by the hearsay rule if a foreign certification attests” to conditions similar to those specified by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6): That is, that the record (1) “was made, at…”
United States v. Witold Pluta, 176 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “902(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 3505 . We conclude that these provisions were not controlling and that if there was any error in the court’s receipt of the passports, it too was harmless.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3505(a) — 1 case
United States v. Kahre, 610 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (D. Nev. 2009).
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.