Justice Department asks Supreme Court to reinstate anti-money laundering law

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

12/31/24 5:53 PM ET


The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency order reinstating a federal anti-money laundering law as a legal battle plays out in a lower court. Passed in 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) would require millions of business entities to disclose personal information about their owners by next month.

The law is on hold after a series of rulings that began when a federal district judge in Texas this month found the legislation likely exceeded Congress’s authority and blocked its enforcement. At the end of multiple whiplash decisions, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the federal government’s request to reinstate the law as it appeals.

In an emergency application docketed Tuesday, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to revive the law as the government continues its appeal in the 5th Circuit, insisting the law is constitutional and that the lower court overreached. “Contrary to the district court’s decision, the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause empower Congress to adopt the CTA’s reporting requirements,” the Justice Department wrote.

The law would require millions of small business entities by next month to provide information about their owners, like their dates of birth and addresses, to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), an arm of the Treasury Department aimed at combatting money laundering and other crimes. Violations can carry civil and criminal penalties.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5061807-justice-department-asks-supreme-court-to-reinstate-anti-money-laundering-law/

[JMCKUSICK]

1. I can't wait for the

Look what they're making poor little Shelly do just because she has a lemonade stand. The Outrage.

[DFW]

2. EU and Swiss companies must report this info about their trading partners

So we have provide this info every year dozens of times anyway. It doesn’t matter if the information has been the same for the last 25 years or not. It still has to be provided again fresh every year.

The EU people hate it because it costs time and effort to provide identical info year after year, and the EU governments are drowning in a sea of repeat identical files they don’t have the manpower to wade through. If there has been a change since the previous year, fine, but if not, “no change since 2009” would save a lot of time, since 2009 is on file and at their immediate disposition. But European bureaucrats love their paperwork. To them, it’s, “why have one copy when you can have fifteen?”

[Old Crank]

3. If there is no change

Why is it a problem to resubmit. Just send in the form with the new dates.
Shouldn't be an expensive proposition.

[DFW]

4. Not expensive, but cumbersome

This is not a subscription renewal to People Magazine.

These are huge files filled with personal information that can be hacked and hijacked along the way. No new dates. Just a repeat of the exact same document we sent them the previous year. It is completely identical to the one sent in years previous. It does absolutely nothing except cause extra work (and paperwork) for our compliance people and theirs. No one is informed of anything they didn't have before. Somewhere in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, etc. are exact duplicates that we sent in previous years to dozens of entities we work with. And this affects hundreds of thousands, probably millions of multi-page documents that the EU governments require of their own registered businesses, large and small. Typical European bureaucracy. Why have one rule when you can have twenty, and if some of them conflict with the others, let the ones affected figure it out. If conflicting rules lead to obligatory fines for non-compliance, so much the better. It's easier to finance their chauffeur-driven limousines and tax-free pensions that way. Make no mistake: the people work for them, and not the other way around.

[LaMouffette]

5. How was this law ever un-instated?! Oh, wait, that's right, because . . . Republicans and the billionaire deep state.

There are waaaaay too many loopholes in our nation's laws and waaaaay too much unfounded trust that only honorable people who would not abuse those loopholes will be elected to public office.

Mango Mussolini has ripped away that innocence by taking advantage of every single loophole and then creating even more for himself through the corrupt Republican-majority Supreme Court giving the presidency immunity.

Too depressing for words, but on a lighter note: Happy New Year, BumRushDaShow!

[travelingthrulife]

6. Lol. Now that is funny. Asking the money launderers to make what they

do illegal.

[Kid Berwyn]

7. Oligarchy or Bust

One sad day at Bohemian Grove…

[republianmushroom]

8. With this supreme court ?

[NotHardly]

9. DOJ begging the Sup. Ct. for justice... the hits just keep coming

[IbogaProject]

10. Main issue is it's only on small businesses

To be fair every business and non-profit should have to file. Make each and every business owner submit id and personal information.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. US Asks Supreme Court to Unblock Corporate Transparency Act

The Department of the Treasury and the DOJ are not giving up on enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act during 2025

Link to tweet

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/us-asks-supreme-court-to-unblock-corporate-transparency-act

The US Department of Justice asked the US Supreme Court to halt a nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act, a move that would allow enforcement of the anti-money laundering law during an appeal.

The US said the lower court injunction should be stayed since the high court traditionally applies a strong presumption in favor of allowing challenged acts of Congress to remain pending a final review, according to the application filed Tuesday.

The federal government is challenging a Dec. 3 injunction by a federal judge in Texas, who found that passing the anti-money laundering law overstepped Congress’ constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause. While a Fifth Circuit panel initially ruled in the government’s favor to allow the law’s reporting requirements, a second panel stepped in Dec. 26 to re-block enforcement.

The CTA would require roughly 32.6 million existing business entities to disclose their beneficial owners to the US Treasury Department, a requirement intended to crack down on illegal economic activity. But the district court ruled that the Commerce Clause can’t be leveraged to compel the disclosure of information for law enforcement purposes.

The back-and-forth rulings have added significant uncertainty to the holidays for corporate compliance officials, who started the month facing a Jan. 1 filing deadline that was frozen, then unfrozen, then pushed back a few weeks by Treasury, then re-blocked.