PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

A bill to provide for a good faith exemption from suspicious activity reporting requirements, and for other purposes.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 25, 2011

Declares that failure by a financial institution or any of its directors, officers, employees, or agents to report a suspicious transaction is not a violation of specified monetary transaction reporting requirements if the institution or person has: (1) in effect an established decision-making process with respect to suspicious transactions, (2) made a good faith effort to follow existing policies, procedures, and processes with respect to such transactions; and (3) determined not to file a report with respect to a particular transaction.

Deems failure to submit a suspicious transaction report to be a violation of such reporting requirements if it is accompanied by evidence of bad faith on the part of either the financial institution or other person.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] · R–KY

Committees

  • Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    2. Introduced in Senate

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze S.1072 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine S.1072 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine S.1072 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine S.1072 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

    View full prompt & sources