The bill amends 31 U.S.C. §5318(l) to require applicants for deposit accounts who are present in the United States to attest — under penalty of perjury — to their lawful presence (citizen, lawful permanent resident, or otherwise lawfully present). Financial institutions may not open or maintain accounts for applicants who refuse to provide that attestation.
The measure also creates a new enforcement framework: civil penalties and criminal sanctions for individuals who knowingly make false attestations, civil and criminal forfeiture of funds in implicated accounts, and a duty for financial institutions to report suspected false attestations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Attorney General. The Treasury must issue model attestation language and reporting guidance within 180 days, and the statute takes effect one year after enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a required self-attestation of lawful presence into banks' Customer Identification Programs and bars institutions from opening accounts for applicants who do not check the attestation box. It makes false attestations a civil and criminal offense, authorizes forfeiture of account property tied to false attestations, and requires institutions to report suspected false statements to DHS and the Attorney General.
Who It Affects
All entities subject to 31 U.S.C. §5318 — commercial banks, savings associations, credit unions, certain fintechs and other depository institutions that implement CIP rules — plus any individual applying for a deposit account while present in the United States. DHS and DOJ gain a new reporting stream for immigration-status allegations.
Why It Matters
This bill ties immigration status directly to access to deposit accounts at the federal statutory level, not just internal bank policy. It creates new criminal and forfeiture exposure for account holders and obligates banks to change onboarding flows and reporting practices, with ripple effects for compliance programs, privacy, and financial inclusion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Alien Banking Act alters the Customer Identification Program requirements in the Bank Secrecy Act by adding a self-attestation of lawful presence for anyone in the United States who seeks to open a deposit account. The attestation is written into the statute as a checkbox or similar affirmation on the account application; applicants must state whether they are a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or otherwise lawfully present as DHS will define.
The bill does not itself specify documentary-verification steps; it centers on a sworn statement from the individual.
If an applicant refuses to provide the attestation, the institution may not open or maintain the account. If an individual knowingly makes a false attestation, the bill subjects them to civil fines and criminal penalties and creates both civil and criminal pathways to forfeit funds in the relevant account.
The civil forfeiture route references existing money-laundering forfeiture procedures under 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A); criminal forfeitures must follow procedures modeled on section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act.Financial institutions receive an operational duty to report to DHS and the Attorney General when they have reason to believe an applicant made a false attestation. Treasury must publish regulations within 180 days — including model language for the attestation and guidelines for reporting suspected false attestations — and the statutory additions take effect one year after the act becomes law.
The statute therefore combines a short regulatory drafting window with a one-year implementation period for industry.Operationally, the bill forces banks to modify onboarding forms, update CIP processes, train staff on the new reporting obligation, and decide how aggressively to verify attestations beyond the checkbox. The legislation places the primary enforcement focus on individuals making false statements, while imposing new reporting and procedural obligations on institutions.
That split — criminal and forfeiture exposure for customers, reporting duties for banks — will shape how banks approach account acceptance, risk-scoring, and relationships with identity-verification vendors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 31 U.S.C. §5318(l) to require any person present in the U.S. seeking a deposit account to attest, under penalty of perjury, to lawful presence via a checkbox or similar affirmation on the application.
Financial institutions are forbidden from opening or maintaining accounts for applicants who decline to provide the required attestation.
An individual who knowingly makes a false attestation faces a civil penalty of $10,000–$50,000 and criminal exposure of up to 5 years imprisonment and fines capped at $250,000.
Any property in an account tied to a knowingly false attestation may be subject to civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A) and criminal forfeiture following procedures modeled on section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act.
Treasury must issue regulations, including model attestation language and reporting guidelines, within 180 days; the statutory changes become effective one year after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Alien Banking Act'
Designates the statute’s short title. This is purely formal but signals the bill’s intent to readers and agencies tasked with implementation.
Mandatory attestation of lawful presence in CIP onboarding
Adds a new subparagraph requiring applicants present in the United States to attest, under penalty of perjury, to their immigration status (citizen, permanent resident, or otherwise lawfully present). Practically, banks will need to add the attestation language or checkbox to deposit-account applications and determine how to capture and retain the sworn statement consistent with records rules and BSA expectations.
Prohibition on opening or maintaining accounts without attestation
Establishes a statutory ban on opening or maintaining accounts for individuals who fail to provide the required attestation. That prohibition converts what might otherwise be a policy decision into a compliance obligation: a failure to collect the attestation legally bars account acceptance, which will require systems changes and clear operational policies for front-line staff and automated onboarding.
Civil and criminal penalties; civil and criminal forfeiture
Imposes civil fines ($10,000–$50,000) and criminal penalties (up to 5 years and fines up to $250,000) on individuals who knowingly submit false attestations. It also authorizes seizure and forfeiture of account property by civil forfeiture under money-laundering statutes and criminal forfeiture under Controlled Substances Act procedures. Institutions themselves are not directly fined by this paragraph, but the presence of forfeiture authority puts funds at risk and raises questions about third-party interests in deposited funds.
Mandatory reporting to DHS and the Attorney General
Requires financial institutions that have reason to believe an applicant made a false attestation to report that belief to DHS and the Attorney General. The bill does not define the evidentiary standard for ‘‘reason to believe’’ or set timelines or formats; Treasury’s forthcoming regulations are directed to provide guidance on reporting mechanics.
Treasury rulemaking and model attestation language
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with DHS and DOJ, to issue implementing regulations within 180 days. Treasury must publish model attestation language and reporting guidelines. The short 180‑day drafting window will force agencies to resolve definitional and procedural issues quickly — including what ‘‘lawfully present’’ means for purposes of bank onboarding and what constitutes sufficient grounds to report a suspected false attestation.
Effective date — one year after enactment
States that the statutory changes take effect one year after enactment, giving institutions a defined implementation horizon after Treasury issues regulations. That lag creates a compressed timeline for systems work, policy updates, vendor contracts, staff training, and compliance testing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice — gain a new, statutorily-backed reporting channel from financial institutions and explicit authority to pursue civil and criminal cases tied to false attestations and associated asset forfeitures.
- Identity‑verification and compliance vendors — will likely see increased demand as banks seek automated tools to reduce false-attestation risk, capture evidence supporting reports, and integrate new attestation fields into onboarding workflows.
- Financial institutions with mature onboarding and compliance programs — can adopt the model attestation quickly, potentially reducing operational friction compared with peers that must build processes from scratch.
- Consumers with clear, documentable immigration status — may experience more standardized application forms and potentially faster onboarding if banks rely on standardized attestation language supplied by Treasury.
Who Bears the Cost
- Banks, credit unions, and fintech deposit‑account providers — must change application forms, update CIP procedures, train staff, build reporting pipelines to DHS and DOJ, and absorb compliance and potential litigation costs associated with ambiguous reporting standards.
- Noncitizen individuals not already documentably lawfully present — those who cannot or will not attest may be denied bank accounts, increasing the risk of financial exclusion and pushing transactions into cash or informal channels.
- Account holders and third parties with funds in implicated accounts — face risk of civil or criminal forfeiture of account property 'regardless of when such property was placed in the account,' creating potential exposure for innocent co‑depositors or funds originating from third parties.
- Federal agencies (Treasury, DHS, DOJ) — bear the administrative and enforcement workload of rulemaking, processing institutional reports, and pursuing civil/criminal matters, which will require resources and interagency coordination.
- Community organizations and service providers assisting immigrants — may face increased demand to help clients navigate documentation requirements and to respond to account closures or reporting incidents.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to use banks as enforcement vectors to strengthen immigration control and purportedly protect the financial system, at the cost of narrowing access to banking and imposing severe criminal and forfeiture penalties on individuals — a trade-off that pits enforcement objectives, operational feasibility, and civil‑liberties and financial‑inclusion concerns against one another with no frictionless resolution.
The bill centers enforcement on individual attestations while making banks the data conduit and gatekeepers to account access. That allocation creates practical implementation puzzles: the statute mandates a sworn statement but does not prescribe documentary verification standards or a safe harbor for institutions that accept attestation in good faith.
Banks therefore must decide whether to accept the checkbox, impose additional document checks to reduce false-attestation risk, or adjust onboarding to avoid reporting and forfeiture entanglements — each choice carries costs and legal exposure.
The forfeiture language is particularly consequential. By authorizing seizure of any property in the account 'regardless of when such property was placed in the account,' the bill potentially captures funds deposited by third parties or legitimately earned income, raising difficult tracing and mens rea questions.
The reporting trigger — when a bank "has reason to believe" an attestation was false — is undefined and may produce high rates of precautionary reporting, straining DHS/DOJ resources and producing reputational and privacy harms for customers. Finally, the statutory dependence on DHS to define 'lawfully present' and on Treasury to draft model language and reporting guidelines compresses complex constitutional, immigration-law, and privacy judgments into a short regulatory window, increasing the risk of uneven implementation and legal challenges.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.