CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ Syllabus III interstate and foreign commerce, do not deprive the bank plaintiffs of due process of law. Pp. 21-26. (a) There is a sufficient nexus between the evil Congress sought to address and the recordkeeping procedure to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the fact that banks are not mere bystanders in transactions involving negotiable instruments but have a substantial stake in their availability and acceptance and are the most easily identifiable party to the instruments, make it appropriate for the banks rather than others to do the recordkeeping. United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1. Pp. 21-25. (b) The cost burdens on the banks of the recordkeeping requirements are not unreasonable. Pp. 25-26. (c) The bank plaintiffs' claim that the recordkeeping requirements undermine the right of a depositor effectively to challenge an IRS third-party summons is premature, absent the issuance of such process involving a depositor's transactions. P. 27. 2. Title I's recordkeeping provisions do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of either the bank or depositor plaintiffs, the mere maintenance by the bank of records without any requirement that they be disclosed to the Government (which can secure access only by existing legal process) constituting no illegal search and seizure. Pp. 28-30. 3. Title I's recordkeeping provisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment rights of either the bank or depositor plaintiffs. Pp. 30-31. (a) The bank plaintiffs, being corporations, have no constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by virtue of the Fifth Amendment. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 74-75. Pp. 30-31. (b) A depositor plaintiff incriminated by evidence produced by a third party sustains no violation of his own Fifth Amendment rights. Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457, 458; Couch v. "United States, 409 U. S. 322, 328. Pp. 30-31. 4. The ACLU's claim that Title I's recordkeeping requirements violate its members' First Amendment rights since the challenged provisions could possibly be used to identify its members and contributors (cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 440), is premature, the Government having sought no such disclosure here. Pp. 31-32. 5. The reporting requirements in Title II applicable to foreign financial dealings, which single out transactions with the greatest IV CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ Syllabus potential for avoiding enforcement of federal laws and which involve substantial sums, do not abridge plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and are well within Congress' powers to legislate with respect to foreign commerce. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154; Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 226, 272. Pp. 35-39. 6. The regulations for the reporting by financial institutions of domestic financial transactions, are reasonable and abridge no Fourth Amendment rights of such institutions, which are themselves parties to the transactions involved, since neither "incorporated nor unincorporated associations [have] an unqualified right to conduct their affairs in secret," United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 652. Pp. 39-43. 7. The depositor plaintiffs, who do not allege engaging in the type of $10,000 domestic currency transaction requiring reporting, lack standing to challenge the domestic reporting regulations. It is therefore unnecessary to consider contentions made by the bank and depositor plaintiffs that the regulations are constitutionally defective because they do not require the financial institution to notify the customer that a report will be filed concerning the domestic currency transaction. Pp. 43-46. 8. The depositor plaintiffs who are parties in this litigation are premature in challenging the foreign and domestic reporting provisions under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 48-51. (a) Since those plaintiffs merely allege that they intend to engage in foreign currency transactions with foreign banks and make no additional allegation that any of the information required by the Secretary will tend to incriminate them, their challenge to the foreign reporting requirements cannot be considered at this time. Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U. S. 1, 105-110, followed; Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, distinguished. Pp. 48-50. (b) The depositor plaintiffs' challenge to the domestic reporting requirements are similarly premature, since there is no allegation that any depositor engaged in a $10,000 domestic transaction with a bank that the latter was required to report and no allegation that any bank report would contain information incriminating any depositor. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39; Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62; and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85, distinguished. Pp. 50-51. 9. The bank plaintiffs cannot vicariously assert Fifth Amendment claims on behalf of their depositors under the circumstances present here, since the depositors cannot assert those claims themselves at this time. See para. 8, supra. P. 47. CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ Syllabus V 10. The contentions of the ACLU that the reporting requirements with respect to foreign and domestic transactions invade its First Amendment associational interests are too speculative and hypothetical to warrant consideration, in view of the fact that the ACLU alleged only that it maintains accounts at a San Francisco bank but not that it regularly engages in abnormally large domestic currency transactions, transports or receives monetary instruments from foreign commercial channels, or maintains foreign bank accounts. Pp. 51-52. 347 F. Supp. 1242, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined. DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., filed dissenting opinions. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. These appeals present questions concerning the constitutionality of the so-called Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Act, Pub. L. No. 508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970), 12 U. S. C. §§ 1829b, 1730d, 1951-1959, and 31 U. S. C. §§ 1051-1122, was enacted by Congress in 1970 following extensive hearings concerning the unavailability of foreign and domestic bank records of customers thought to be engaged in activities 2 CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ entailing criminal or civil liability. Under the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe by regulation certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for banks and other financial institutions in this country. Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone. The express purpose of the Act is to require the maintenance of records, and the making of certain reports, which "have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings." 12 U. S. C. §§ 1829b (a) (2), 1951; 31 U. S. C. § 1051. Congress was apparently concerned with two major problems in connection with the enforcement of the regulatory, tax, and criminal laws of the United States.1 First, there was a need to insure that domestic banks and financial institutions continued to maintain adequate records of their financial transactions with their customers. Congress found that the recent growth of financial institutions in the United States had been paralleled by an increase in criminal activity which made use of these institutions. While many of the records which the Secretary by regulation ultimately required to be kept had been traditionally maintained by the voluntary action of many domestic financial institutions, Congress See generally S. Rep. No. 91-1139, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); H. R. Rep. No. 91-975, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); Hearings before the House Committee on Banking and Currency on Foreign Bank Secrecy and Bank Records, 91st Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. (1970); Hearings before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on Foreign Bank Secrecy (S. 3678), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). |