Lopez v. First Union National Bank of Florida

Patricia Lopez (plaintiff) was a customer of First Union National Bank of Florida (First Union) (defendant). In September and November 1993, First Union received large electronic funds transfers (EFTs) to Lopez’s account. On the same days as the EFTs, First Union provided federal law enforcement with access to Lopez’s EFTs’ contents based solely on law enforcement’s verbal instructions. Law enforcement later obtained a seizure warrant regarding Lopez’s accounts, pursuant to which First Union provided access to the contents of electronically stored EFTs. Lopez ultimately civilly forfeited almost $110,000 to the federal government. Lopez then sued First Union for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act by its actions. In response, First Union argued, among other things, that the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992 (A-W Act), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3), immunized it from liability for disclosures of (1) possible illegality, (2) disclosures under § 5318(g)(3) itself (e.g., Treasury Department regulations), and (3) other legally authorized disclosures. The district court dismissed Lopez’s complaint, holding that First Union was immune under § 5318(g)(3). Lopez appealed, arguing that § 5318(g)(3) did not protect First Union because it did not apply to EFTs and the contents thereof. Lopez further argued that First Union’s disclosures were not shielded by § 5318(g)(3) because (1) First Union did not have a good-faith basis to believe that it was disclosing evidence of possible illegality, (2) there were no operative Treasury Department regulations authorizing the disclosures at the relevant time, and (3) disclosures pursuant to verbal requests by law enforcement were not legally authorized disclosures.