PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 13, 2016
Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2016
This bill prohibits a federal banking agency from formally or informally suggesting, requesting, or ordering a depository institution to terminate either a specific customer account, or group of customer accounts, or otherwise restrict or discourage it from entering into or maintaining a banking relationship with a specific customer or group of customers, unless: (1) the agency has a material reason to do so, and (2) the reason is not based solely on reputation risk to the institution.
The "material reason" criterion shall be satisfied if an agency believes that a specific customer or group of customers poses a threat to national security, including any belief that they are involved in terrorist financing.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Unless the appropriate agency determines that the customer or group of customers has used due diligence to avoid doing business with any entity described below, the bill deems the criteria addressing "material reason" to be met if the agency believes a customer or group of customers is, or is acting as, a conduit for an entity which:
poses a threat to national security;
is involved in terrorist financing;
is an agency of the government of Iran, North Korea, Syria, or any country listed from time to time on the state sponsor of terrorism list;
is either located in, or subject to the jurisdiction of, any of such countries; or
does business with any entity located in such countries.
If an appropriate federal banking agency orders a depository institution to terminate a specific customer account or a group of customer accounts, the depository institution shall inform the customer or customers of the justification for the termination.
No notice may be given to the customer, however, if the agency requests or orders a depository institution to terminate a customer account (or a group of customer accounts) based upon a belief that customer or those customers pose a threat to national security or are otherwise described above.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 is amended to revise requirements for summoning witnesses and requiring production of books or other records the Attorney General deems relevant or material to a civil investigation in contemplation of a civil proceeding which may result in civil penalties for specified violations.
People & committees
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.2790 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.
Examine S.2790 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.
Examine S.2790 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.
Examine S.2790 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.