Database Search Results
The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1957, doesn’t explicitly grant any authority to create regulations. However, it works in conjunction with other statutes (12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959) that do provide that authority. Those other statutes provide specific authority by directing the agency to create regulations related to casinos and card clubs that make it easier to prosecute those who commit violations in furtherance of other Federal crimes.
While the regulations are linked to a chapter concerning criminal penalties, the statute doesn’t specify what specific actions the agency should regulate within that chapter. It provides broad authority to create regulations, the violation of which will trigger the criminal penalty. The agency is left to define what constitutes a violation through rulemaking. This lacks the clear instruction regarding specific regulatory tasks that would categorize it as a Specific Authority Delegation.
The statute 12 U.S. Code § 1956 creates a penalty for violating regulations “under this chapter”. Looking at the authority section of the regulation, 31 CFR Part 1024, it lists 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959. This implies that Title 31 CFR Part 1024 is promulgated under the specified chapter. Therefore, because the statue does not mandate the agency to regulate any specific task, but simply states that violating agency regulation will lead to a penalty, it is a general authority delegation.
While the statute 12 U.S.C. § 1956 itself doesn’t delegate rulemaking authority, the statutes listed in the “Authority” section of the regulation (specifically 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959) delegate the authority to create the regulations found in 31 CFR Part 1025. These statutes provide broad authority to regulate financial institutions and prevent money laundering without specifically instructing the agency on the precise content or scope of regulations for insurance companies; hence it is a General Authority delegation.
The statute provides a penalty for violating “any regulation under this chapter.” While it references the chapter, it doesn’t specify what kind of regulations are needed or how they should be implemented beyond referencing “regulations under this chapter.” The chapter is titled “Financial Recordkeeping”. This structure gives the agency broad rulemaking authority to create regulations related to financial recordkeeping.
The statute, when viewed in conjunction with the regulation’s stated authority, indicates a specific delegation. The regulation, 31 CFR Part 1029, cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as an authority. While 12 U.S.C. 1956 specifically creates a criminal penalty for violating regulations “under this chapter,” taken together, this implies Congress has authorized the agency to create regulations within a defined sphere, and those regulations can be enforced with a penalty laid out in the statute. While the scope of “this chapter” might not be incredibly narrow, it is far more specific than simply granting broad rulemaking authority.
The statute provides a broad grant of authority to create regulations within the chapter, without specifying particular regulatory tasks. The statute simply states that violating “any regulation under this chapter” will result in a penalty. This lacks specificity in the regulatory task, characteristic of a general authority delegation.
The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1956, does not itself create regulatory obligations. It simply provides a penalty for violating regulations created under “this chapter.” Therefore, it presupposes that another statute or statutes within the same chapter grants an agency the authority to promulgate regulations. Thus, without examining that other statute granting rulemaking authority, we can conclude this is a general authority statute, as it does not clearly instruct an agency on a specific regulatory task or gap, but punishes any violation of regulations promulgated under the “this chapter”.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1956 itself does not delegate authority, the existence of regulations under “this chapter” is necessary for the criminal penalty to be applied. Looking at the regulation (31 CFR Part 1020), we see it is authorized by 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959. Without reviewing the primary source of law (the entire “chapter” of the U.S. Code), it is difficult to say if 1951-1959 provides specific instructions on what to regulate. However, given the breadth of topics in the subparts of the regulation (definitions, programs, reports, records, information sharing, due diligence), it’s more likely that this is a broad delegation of rulemaking authority rather than a specific directive, putting it in the “General Authority” category as it enables a wide range of regulations related to banks.
The statute provides a penalty for violating regulations issued “under this chapter,” which encompasses 12 U.S.C. §§ 1951-1959. While not providing wholly unbounded discretion, the delegation gives the agency (likely Treasury, based on 31 CFR Part 1021 and the Effective Date note referring to the Secretary of the Treasury) broad rulemaking authority to create regulations to address the issues covered by the chapter on illegal gambling businesses. The regulations for casinos and card clubs, 31 CFR Part 1021, are issued under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 (among other statutes) and implement the broad purpose of those statutes by specifically detailing the programs, reports, records, information sharing, and diligence standards these establishments must maintain. While these regulations are specific in nature, they are built on a broad delegation of authority to regulate in this area. Thus, I am classifying it as General Authority under Hickman’s framework.
While 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 is cited as authority for the regulation (31 CFR Part 1022), the statute provided only states a penalty for violating regulations “under this chapter.” To determine the delegation category, we need to look at the underlying statute that authorizes the regulation in 31 CFR Part 1022. Based on the authority note for Part 1022, the regulation is authorized by 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332, which contain broad language that allows the agency to create rules and requirements for money service businesses, anti-money laundering programs, and reporting requirements. These provisions provide broad authority to regulate money service businesses but do not specifically instruct the agency on a particular regulatory task. Therefore, the underlying statutes delegate general authority.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1955 doesn’t explicitly instruct the agency (Secretary) on what regulations to create beyond those “under this chapter”, it very specifically details how to use regulation, instructing it can be used to impose civil penalties. This is a clear regulatory task, making it a specific authority delegation.
The statute specifically addresses the regulatory task of assessing civil penalties for violations. It clarifies who is subject to penalties, what conduct triggers penalties (“willful or grossly negligent violation of any regulation under this chapter”), and how much the penalty can be (not exceeding $10,000). Thus, the delegation is for a specific regulatory purpose, and falls under the Specific Authority Delegation category.
The statute provides specific instruction regarding the assessment of civil penalties for violations of regulations promulgated under the chapter. It identifies the regulated parties and outlines the parameters for the penalties (willful or grossly negligent violations, maximum penalty amount). The statute does not grant broad rulemaking authority, but instead directly instructs the agency on how to penalize regulatory noncompliance.
While “this chapter” is very broad, the delegation is still “Specific Authority.” The statute explicitly empowers the Secretary to assess civil penalties for violations of regulations issued under that chapter. This is a specific regulatory task related to enforcement and penalties, which fits within the “Specific Authority” delegation framework. The statute clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task (penalty assessment) for violations of regulations within the cited chapter.
The statute provides specific authority to the Secretary to assess civil penalties for violations of regulations within the chapter. It even specifies the maximum penalty amount ($10,000) and the mental state required (“willful or grossly negligent”). This constitutes a specific regulatory task defined by the statute.
The statute clearly identifies the regulatory task by instructing the Secretary on when and how to assess civil penalties for violating existing regulations under that chapter. Even with open-ended terms like “willful” or “grossly negligent”, this qualifies as a specific authority delegation according to Hickman.
The statute authorizes the Secretary to assess civil penalties for violations of regulations promulgated “under this chapter,” specifically targeting violations related to the subject matter covered in the chapter. This focuses the rulemaking authority on a specific regulatory gap””defining conduct subject to civil penalties””providing a framework for how the penalty should be assessed (willful or grossly negligent violations).
The statute provides specific authority to the Secretary to assess civil penalties for violations of regulations promulgated under the same chapter. While the specific content of the regulations is left to the Secretary’s discretion, the statute clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task: enforcement through civil penalties. The phrase “may assess upon any person to which the regulation applies” and specifying the maximum penalty amount further solidify the specific nature of the delegation.
The statute specifically authorizes the Secretary to assess civil penalties for violations of regulations established under the same chapter. This is a specific regulatory task identified by Congress. Although the regulations themselves might involve discretion in defining prohibited behavior, the authority to penalize violations is explicitly and directly delegated.
The statute identifies a specific regulatory task: enforcement of regulations created under the referenced chapter. The statute provides specific guidance on how violations of regulations should be punished. Thus, this is a specific authority delegation.
While the statute references regulations, it doesn’t specify what those regulations should entail, only authorizing injunctions for violations. It gives the Secretary discretion to craft regulations within the broader scope of the chapter without directly specifying any particular regulatory task or addressing any particular regulatory gap.
While the statute gives the Secretary discretion regarding when to bring an action, it relates directly to regulations issued “under this chapter”. Other sections within this chapter likely provide more specific guidance on the regulatory tasks or gaps that need to be addressed. 12 USC 1954 does not grant the Secretary broad rulemaking authority.
The statute instructs the agency (Secretary) on a specific task: seeking injunctions to enforce regulations promulgated under the same chapter. While the power to create the regulations is in other statutes, this statute specifically empowers enforcement via injunctions, contingent on the existence of those regulations.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1954 speaks of “any regulation under this chapter,” it does not specifically instruct the Secretary regarding what regulations to create. Instead, it gives the Secretary broad authority to bring actions regarding violations of regulations that the Secretary has already created under separate authorities. Thus, the regulatory delegation within “this chapter” is broad.