WHEN SUBPOENAING A BANK WHAT INFORMAION MUST BE PROVIDED. NUMBER OF ACCOUNT NAME ON ACCOUNT ETC
Executive summary
A court-issued subpoena to a bank must identify the proceeding, name the bank and where to serve it, describe with specificity the records sought (account numbers, owner names, date ranges and types of documents), and provide logistics—where and when to produce—because banks respond only to properly served and sufficiently specific subpoenas [1] [2] [3]. Federal law and banking practice also allow banks to demand a custodian’s affidavit, certificates of compliance, or other proof before producing records, and there are statutory and regulatory limits on disclosure for things like Suspicious Activity Reports and foreign-bank records [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What a valid subpoena to a bank must say: case identity, recipient, and what to produce
A subpoena should include the court and case caption and number, the name and address of the financial institution to be served, where the produced records should be delivered, the deadline for production, the identity of the requesting party, and a clear, specific description of the documents sought (for example, the named customer, account numbers, routing numbers, date ranges, and the particular statements, ledger entries, or transaction details) because courts and banks require specificity to determine relevance and to process non‑party discovery [1] [3] [2].
2. Specificity matters: account numbers, names, date ranges, and types of records
Requests that enumerate the account holder’s name, exact account number, and precise date ranges plus the types of documents wanted—monthly statements, cancelled checks, deposit tickets, wire transfer records, ACH details, and internal ledgers—are the norm; vague requests (e.g., “all records”) invite objections or motions to quash and may be trimmed by the court as overly broad [1] [2] [8].
3. What banks will often demand before producing records: affidavits, certificates, and customer notice
Banks commonly require a properly served subpoena and may insist on a custodian-of-record affidavit or declaration authenticating the produced documents, and when the government is involved some procedures require certificates of compliance or formal written requests to trigger safe-harbor protections under privacy statutes [4] [5] [6] [9].
4. Privacy limits, privileged material, and regulatory prohibitions (SARs, examiner materials)
Even with a valid subpoena, banks must protect regulatory privileges and statutorily confidential materials: Suspicious Activity Reports and any information that would reveal their existence are generally nondisclosable under the Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulations; bank examiner materials and other supervisory information may also be shielded under agency rules [5] [6].
5. Extra rules for non‑party accounts, foreign banks, and government subpoenas
When records concern a non‑party, courts will balance privacy interests and often require the requesting party to demonstrate necessity—sometimes a “compelling” need—to override privacy protections; for foreign banks or correspondent accounts, special summons/subpoena rules and deadlines apply and U.S. authorities can pursue foreign‑bank records through mutual‑assistance mechanisms or by serving a U.S. correspondent under 31 C.F.R. and related guidance [8] [10] [7] [11].
6. Service mechanics and procedural protections: personal service, notice to customer, and motions to quash
Proper service procedures matter: many jurisdictions require personal service on the bank or service in a specified manner, banks and affected customers can be given notice and an opportunity to move to quash or limit scope, and courts may seal or modify orders to address volume, burden, or confidentiality concerns [2] [12] [3].
7. Practical pitfalls and the requester’s burden
Requesters should anticipate objections and prepare to justify specificity and relevance in court; failing to provide account identifiers, date ranges, or a clear document list risks delay, overproduction, or denial, while overbroad subpoenas may trigger judicial sanctions or protective orders and can implicate statutory privacy traps if they touch SARs or supervisory files [1] [2] [5] [4].