No Valid Claim Against
Bank Where it Made Bank Secrecy Act Reports
In a decision rendered early last month by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, it rejected claims by bank
customers that, when the bank made reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act
relating to suspicious activities, the bank could be held liable to its
customers. Rather, the court found that the bank enjoyed absolute immunity. Ventura v. Central Bank, No.
2015-CA-001407-MR, 2017 WL 461256 (Ky. App. Feb. 3, 2017).
The Venturas own and operate
Miguel’s Pizza and Rock Climbing Shop, a fixture of the rock climbing community
in Kentucky's Red River Gorge. Central Bank, which handled the Ventura’s
accounts, had made reports based upon the apparent manipulation of cash
deposits. Special cash transaction reporting obligations arise when $10,000 or
more is deposited. Additional rules under the Bank Secrecy Act require
reporting if it appears that a bank customer is manipulating their deposits such
as by making repeated deposits just below the $10,000 threshold. Eventually
Central Bank would close the Ventura’s account. The Venturas were indicted on
charges of violating the Bank Secrecy Act, but ultimately were acquitted by a
jury. Thereafter, they filed this action against Central Bank, asserting a
variety of claims based upon the reports that the bank had filed as required by
the Bank Secrecy Act.
The trial court, based upon the
safe harbor preemption provided by the Bank Secrecy Act, dismissed the
complaint, and this appeal followed. The Court of Appeals would likewise find
that Central Bank employed absolute immunity from the claims being made.
Specifically, the Bank Secrecy Act provides:
Any financial
institution that makes a voluntary disclosure of any possible violation of law
or regulation to a government agency or makes a disclosure pursuant to this
subsection or any other authority, and any director, officer, employee, or
agent of such institution who makes, or requires another to make any such
disclosure, shall not be liable to any person under any law or regulation of
the United States, any constitution, law or regulation of any State or
political subdivision of any State, or under any contract or other legally
enforceable agreement (including any arbitration agreement), for such
disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of such disclosure to the
person who is the subject of such disclosure or any other person identified in
the disclosure.
Based thereon, there could be
no claim against the bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment