Title III of the Patriot Act was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
April 23, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 5, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
January 31, 2009	Good topic candidate	Promoted
June 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 6, 2009	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Delisted good article

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

**Completion status of article on Title III**
Completed = 43 That's all of the sections done!

Starting[edit]

I'm about to start documenting this title. It's cool - I'll have it start soon - promise! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Can anyone tell me the size of the orgiinal patriot act in pages? (user Anon 4-3-2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

OK, starting now[edit]

Sorry it's taken so long to start work on this, I've been more busy that you'd ever know! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research[edit]

The title seems to have amended the Bank Secrecy Act.

Terms[edit]

Here are a list of terms that I had to track down in order to understand Title III - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money laundering - the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source and/or destination of money and is a main operation of underground economy.
Payable-through account - a demand deposit account through which banking agencies located in the United States extend cheque writing privileges to the customers of foreign banks (defined in section 311, or 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(1)(C))
Beneficial ownership - applies to a party who gains benefits of ownership from an account even though the account is in another name and they do not own it themselves (defined in section 311, or 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(3))
Correspondent account - A Correspondent Account for a foreign bank is any account to receive deposits from, make payments or other disbursements on behalf of a foreign bank, or handle other financial transactions related to the foreign bank. [1] (also defined in section 311, or 31 U.S.C. § 5318A(e)(1)(B))
Concentration account - an sole account used for internal bank purposes to facilitate the processing and settlement of multiple or individual customer transactions within the bank, usually on the same day. [2] Such accounts can lead to the concealment by banks of transactions made by customers, however section 325 banned their use for such purposes by prohibiting financial institutions from allowing clients to direct transactions that move their funds into, out of, or through the concentration accounts of the financial institution; and prohibit the financial instutitions from informing clients about the existence of such accounts and disallows any disclosure that may allow a customer a way of identifying such accounts that the financial instution may use. Methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that comingles funds belonging to one or more customers.

Sections[edit]

Section 312[edit]

Section 314[edit]

See http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-1955.html#8000fra103.100 for further rule making.
http://www.complianceheadquarters.com/AML/AML_Articles/section_314a_guidance.html further info
For 314 (b) see http://www.complianceheadquarters.com/AML/AML_Articles/section_314b_sharing.html
original announcement by Federal Reserve

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations, 314 (a) originally stated that the secretary had to adopt regulations to encourage further communications between financial institutions, their regulators and law enforcement agencies. Due to complexity, on February 26th 2002 the U.S. Treasury put together a proposed rule [3], and then on March 14th 2002 they released 31 CFR 103.100 which was entitled "Special Information Sharing Procedures To Deter Money Laundering and Terrorist Activity". Also found at [4]

Section 326[edit]

67 FR 48290 - initial proposal for final rule on section 326
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/326finalrulebanks.pdf
May 9, 2003 solicitations
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js743.htm - Treasury Announces Results of PATRIOT ACT Section 326 Notice of Inquiry
Section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is actually 12 U.S.C. § 1842(k).
31 CFR 103.121
Final Regulations Implementing Customer Identity Verification Requirements under Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act

Section 327[edit]

The 'Board' means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Section 361[edit]

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/200251717204423160.htm - report in accordance of 361(b)

Section 356[edit]

http://www.fincen.gov/356report.pdf - report in accordance with section 356(c)
66 FR 67670

Section 357[edit]

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/200251717182123102.htm - Report to Congress in Accordance with 357 of the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT)

Section 359[edit]

http://www.fincen.gov/hawalarptfinal11222002.pdf Report to Congress in Accordance with Section 359 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 11/22/02

Section 361[edit]

http://www.fincen.gov/fbar3613.pdf Report to Congress in Accordance with Section 361(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, 04/24/03

Section 366[edit]

http://www.fincen.gov/section366report.pdf Report to Congress in Accordance with Section 366 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 10/25/02

Reports[edit]

list of reports

History[edit]

1997: International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [5]
"As you know, the Criminal Division also works extensively to provide assistance to countries that seek to improve their money laundering and asset forfeiture laws and enhance their enforcement programs. Prior to September 11th, the Criminal Division designed and presented a training course to share with foreign governments and practitioners our knowledge and expertise in rooting out terrorist financing." [6]
H. R. 3004, the “Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001”

Source material removed[edit]

I am removing the source material that has been added to the findings section because it's already in Wikisource, and Wikipedia is not a repository of original text. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start working on removing the repetitive footnote references to the outside USC source. Instead I will foot not the general web page, and move the links from the footnote section into the main body to avoid confusion, help navigation, and (mainly) to shorten the footnotes section. - Darkwraith 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completion meter[edit]

I have added a completion "meter" to monitor my progress on how well I'm completing the sections of this title. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed[edit]

GA has passed but more outside reactions should be given. Something like reception of this law or cases that have been solved with this law, etc. Lincher 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The issues:

1) The sections "Subtitle A ..." and "Subtitle B ..." have leading parts that summarize them. Such parts are not necessary, because they largely duplicate the article's lead and partly duplicate the text in the sections. In addition "Subtitle C ..." does not have such a leading part, which looks like inconsistency in the layout. Some material from these two leading parts can be IMO moved in the article's lead.

2) The article is referenced unevenly (not counting unnecessary leading parts). For instance, subsections "Restrictions on accounts and foreign banks", "Voice and vote" and "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" do not have inline references at all.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 07:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I must disagree on the first point. IMO, sections need a brief summary that explain what the subsections are referring to, as a brief overview. Could you point me to the MOS that states otherwise? On the second point, the citation is within the text. It says "Under section 360". - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Summary_style. While this part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style does not exlicitly ban summaries at the begining of sections, it provides important guidience on how such articles should be structured. In other words a section should act as a summary of a subarticle. In the present article sections do sum up relevant subarticles, but there are additional summaries of sections themself and finaly the lead section. If you think that the sections are too long and need summaries, it means that article/subarticles are unbalanced. In this case you should shorten the long sections (which are summaries themself) and remove section's summaries.

In addition, I have mentioned that "Subtitle C ..." section does not have a summary, which also proves that the article is unbalanced, because sections "Subtitle B ..." and "Subtitle A ..." are given more weight then "Subtitle C ...".

I actually found these summaries while reading "Subtitle B ...". I read "The subtitle allows the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to authorise personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. " in the summary then read the same in the relevant subsection. I initially thought that I found a simple duplication, which often exist in WiKi articles. This actually forced me to interrupt reading and go up the article to check my discovery. I think such duplication can confuse and irritate readers, like it irritated me. At least these summaries must not repeat phrases from the subsections, i.e. they should be summaries not duplications.

As to references, I am more concerned with a lack consistency: "Restrictions on accounts and foreign banks" subsection does not have refs, but the next subsection has lots of them. I hope that my observation will be helpful. Ruslik 14:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken about the duplicated text. I'll try to sort this out soon. However, you are aware that though referencing might be uneven, I'm not violating GA criteria on this point? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to remove duplicates after all. A week has passed without any changes.Ruslik 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Incidently, how do you know the article is unbalanced? Have you actually read the subtitle? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read all this article and the separate article about Subtitle B. I also read parts of Title III and compared them with the article. By unbalanced, I mean that if Subtitles A and B have summaries, Subtitle C should also have one.? Otherwise the structure of the article looks illogical. I actually continue to think that summaries are not necessary at all, but because you insisted on leaving them in the article, I think the Subtitle C needs summary. I'm awaiting now, when you rewrite summary of the Subtitle B and remove duplicating text from it. Ruslik 07:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the duplicate text. Unless there is duplicate text you have detected that I'm not aware of. I have also added a summary to subtitle C. Why do you believe the article is illogical? And should a summary be something you are pinging for a good article? This is GA, not FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"to authorise personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. Federal reserve bank", besides I can not locate any changes related to the removal of duplicate in the history of the article. Ruslik 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. As a summary, you still need to say this. I strongly disagree with your assertions as to summary form, and I've been editing FAs quite successfully using this method for some time. Sorry if it irritated you, but you are getting irritated by standard practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote that paragraph myself. I think it looks better now. Can you provide an example wriiten by others, where such a summary style has been used ? Ruslik 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000. Talk to Mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think now after some improvements this article can be kept. Ruslik 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I concede the point. Your change is much better. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Stale merger proposal. No discussion. Articles not merged. WTF? (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A should be merged into this page, the subtitle does not meet WP:Notability and does not contain any encyclopedic content. --129.10.244.151 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now Wikipedia's first featured redirect. 129.10.244.151 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delisted from GA status[edit]

See Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title III/GA1. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title I which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriot Act, Title III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524213326/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/lormel100902.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/lormel100902.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Patriot Act, Title III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]