Court Opinion

ID: 9622335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:15:40.540877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:15.478714
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting and concurring) :
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion in the above case which upholds the constitutionality of 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1121 and 1122, and the Treasury regulations- implementing said sections.
I respectfully dissent, however, from that portion of said opinion which holds that 31 U.S.C. §§ 1081, 1082 and 1083 relating tó domestic banking transactions are unconstitutional.
*1252As I see it, there is no essential difference between the statutes covering domestic and those covering foreign banking requirements. The majority-opinion refers to no authority which is directly on point. The references therein to cases involving conversational privacy are to me inapposite. Any person or organization using banks for their own purposes does so knowing that the Code sections in question permit access to bank records by the government and reports by the banks concerning those records.
Courts should be slow in finding a Congressional enactment unconstitutional.
In this case, if any hardships result by reason of these statutes, application can be made to Congress for relief.