By Howard J. Ruff
The Supreme Court has ruled that
the records of your account with the
bank are the property of the bank
and can be subpoenaed by the
Internal Revenue Service in a
criminal action suit against you , or
even in a simple tax dispute , for that
matter . The Constitution protects us ,
supposedly , against being forced to
incriminate ourselves and I find these
principles in conflict if a third party
can be forced to disclose your private
records .
There is an interesting conflict of
rights .
I -The bank is required by Federal
Reserve and Treasury regulations to
microfilm all checks as a permanent
record to be used for whatever
fishing expedition government might
deem of interest at any given time .
2-The law does not require you to
make your check legible for
microfilming .
3 -The regulators have been trying
to get around this by telling the banks
not to accept your check unless you
help them by having a check which
can be microfilmed .
4 -The courts have held on many
occasions that checks can be written
on anything , just so that they can be
read well enough to be negotiated ,
so they shouldn't be able to get away
with it.
Here is the big question . Do you
have to cooperate with the bank
PLAY METER, October, 1978
requirement to be microfilmed?
Legally , no . But as a practical
matter you may have to yield to get
the bank to do business with you .
I've been recommending that
people conduct their banking busi-
ness on dark red checks as a simple
matter of personal privacy , as it is
impossible to microfilm them by
banks for their permanent records . I
had no idea how much that would
bother Big Brother.
The folloWing letter went out from
the Department of the Treasury to
the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve and was passed on
to all banks in the Fourth Federal
Reserve District by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland :
" Dear Mr. Ryan :
A number of federal agencies , as
well as the American Bankers
Association have directed
our
attention to a new practice in the
printing of checks. As reported by
TIME magazine in its September 26 ,
1977 issue , a firm in Charlotte , North
Carolina , is selling check forms
printed on red paper.
Apparently , when checks written
on red paper are routinely microfilm-
ed , the microfilm of them is illegible .
Since 31 CFR 103 contains a general
requirement that each drawee bank
must maintain the original or copy of
checks written for more than $100 , it
may be advisable to alert banks to
their responsibility in this area . If a
bank permits its depositors to use
checks which cannot be effectively
microfilmed and fails to make other
provision to meet the requirements
of the regulations , it may well be in
violation of the law.
Please keep us informed concern-
ing any action you decide to take
with respect to this matter ; we would
appreciate receiving copies of any
general communications that you
may issue on the subject .
I sl Arthur Sinai-
Deputy Assistant
Secretary (Enforcement)"
So , how do you beat the game if
you still want to maintain your
privacy? There are several tech-
niques , some requiring a little
ingenuity and inconvenience.
I'm not sure why I am doing all
this , except that I have a visceral
concern for my Constitutional
freedoms , and even though I have
nothing to hide , I never know which
of the hundreds of thousands of
regulations I might inadvertently
violate some day , giving them the
excuse for a fishing expedition into
my private affairs . You don 't have to
have anything illegal or immoral in
your background to want to maintain
your privacy. Would you like your
neighbors to be able to snoop
through your cancelled checks any
time they want? I think that principle
59