Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case:
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 10× “31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
Ramon Cierco v. Steven Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). The APA requires FinCEN to publish a “notice of proposed rule making .”
Cierco v. Lew, 190 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 3× “§ 5318A, gave the government authority to impose any of five “special measures” on domestic financial institutions, provided the Secretary, “finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that a foreign bank — ie,, one “operating Outside the United States” — is “of primary…”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 125 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2015).
· cites it 4× “31 U.S.C. § 5318A. Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Holder, 673 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “§ 1610 (f)(2)(B)(i) (allowing Secretaries of State and Treasury discretion to provide information to court under seal in executing on assets of foreign states); 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(f) (allowing ex parte and in camera submission of evidentiary support for Secretary of Treasury’s…”
FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 249 F. Supp. 3d 215 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B)(i) (requiring a consideration of “the extent to which [a] financial institution[ ] .”
In re Sealed, 932 F.3d 915 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(1)(B) (defining "correspondent account" to mean "an account established to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of a foreign financial institution, or handle other financial transactions related to such institution").”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 142 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2015).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A; 79 Fed.Reg. 42639 (July 22, 2014).”
FBME Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 709 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“Invoking section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318A, FinCEN undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking and issued a regulation “prohibit[ing] U.”
Cierco v. Lew (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Relevant here, § 311 of the PATRIOT Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5318A, gave the government authority to impose any of five “special measures” on domestic financial institutions, provided the Secretary “finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that a foreign bank – i.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(1) — 1 case
Cierco v. Lew (D.D.C. 2016).
“Relevant here, § 311 of the PATRIOT Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5318A, gave the government authority to impose any of five “special measures” on domestic financial institutions, provided the Secretary “finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that a foreign bank – i.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C) — 2 cases
Ramon Cierco v. Steven Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). The APA requires FinCEN to publish a “notice of proposed rule making .”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(4)(B) — 1 case
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(4)(B)(iii) — 1 case
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(l) — 3 cases
Cierco v. Lew, 190 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.D.C. 2016).
“§ 5318A, gave the government authority to impose any of five “special measures” on domestic financial institutions, provided the Secretary, “finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that a foreign bank — ie,, one “operating Outside the United States” — is “of primary…”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 125 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2015).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A. Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(b) — 1 case
Ramon Cierco v. Steven Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). The APA requires FinCEN to publish a “notice of proposed rule making .”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B) — 1 case
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B)(i) — 1 case
FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 249 F. Supp. 3d 215 (D.D.C. 2017).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B)(i) (requiring a consideration of “the extent to which [a] financial institution[ ] .”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 249 F. Supp. 3d 215 (D.D.C. 2017).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(2)(B)(i) (requiring a consideration of “the extent to which [a] financial institution[ ] .”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(c)(l) — 2 cases
Ramon Cierco v. Steven Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). The APA requires FinCEN to publish a “notice of proposed rule making .”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(1)(B) — 3 cases
In re Sealed, 932 F.3d 915 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(1)(B) (defining "correspondent account" to mean "an account established to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of a foreign financial institution, or handle other financial transactions related to such institution").”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(l)(B) — 1 case
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 209 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D.D.C. 2016).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A(a)(2)(C). Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(f) — 3 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Holder, 673 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2011).
“§ 1610 (f)(2)(B)(i) (allowing Secretaries of State and Treasury discretion to provide information to court under seal in executing on assets of foreign states); 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(f) (allowing ex parte and in camera submission of evidentiary support for Secretary of Treasury’s…”
Fbme Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 125 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2015).
“31 U.S.C. § 5318A. Congress also empowered the agency to consider classified information in formulating a rule under this section, and to provide that information “to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera.”
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.