(DailyChive.com) – In a significant ruling, a federal judge has temporarily halted a contentious new currency reporting mandate that sparked a debate over the balance between financial privacy and crime prevention.
At a Glance
- A federal judge blocked a rule requiring cash transaction reports for amounts over $200 in select border areas.
- New policy by FinCEN intended to target cartel money laundering faced criticism for burdening small businesses.
- Judge’s decision allows legal challenges, with plaintiffs likely to succeed against the rule’s legality.
- Over 97% of Currency Transaction Reports filed between 2014-2023 remain unused by law enforcement.
New Regulation Challenges
A federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order halting a Treasury Department rule that lowers the reporting threshold for cash transactions from $10,000 to $200. Aimed at curbing illicit activities by cartels along the southern U.S. border, the rule encountered backlash from local business owners who argue it unfairly targets legitimate transactions. The financial oversight expansion has been criticized for adding surveillance measures that primarily hurt smaller and often less affluent communities.
The rule impacts businesses in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas. These businesses, particularly money service providers, voiced concerns over the excessive paperwork and compliance costs. Plaintiffs in the case, supported by the Institute for Justice, assert the order burdens businesses unnecessarily. The legal battle could lead to stricter scrutiny of federal surveillance tactics, which may begin with this restraining order.
Broad and Ineffective Oversight
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued the Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) to counter the financial methods of Mexico-based cartels. However, law enforcement used a mere fraction of the tens of millions of currency transaction reports over nearly a decade, highlighting inefficiencies. The cut in the reporting amount brings even more transactions under government scrutiny, exacerbating fears of overreach in financial privacy.
“Sammartino ruled that the San Diego plaintiffs, Gomez and her business, Novedades y Servicios Plus, ‘have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims,'” – Alex Riggins, The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Critics argue that the focus on money service businesses overlooks the more sophisticated methods employed by criminals, such as cryptocurrencies and the dark web, raising doubts about the GTO’s effectiveness. Resistance to these sweeping measures has been growing, with calls for more inclusive discussions on mitigating unintended impacts on local communities, particularly in border areas.
Future Implications
Judge Janis Sammartino’s temporary ruling offers not just relief but a cautionary tale on enacting policies that may infringe on financial privacy. The Institute for Justice aims to overturn the GTO altogether, driving forward a narrative that demands more sensible, targeted approaches to crime prevention.
“The government’s order enlists these businesses to carry out an unprecedented and sweeping government surveillance system, and buried them in paperwork in the process.” – Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Rob Johnson.
Overall, the essential balance between protecting citizens from criminal enterprises and safeguarding individual rights calls for nuanced policies that do not disproportionately burden law-abiding citizens and businesses.
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
