Our only concern was just another database of info that can be hacked.
With the way this is setup, it brings all major parties into 1 nice file for bad actors to do bad actor things more easily.
And @Uncle_Leroy is correct. This isn’t going to stop criminals.
I haven’t heard of a govt database being leaked yet, but I guess it could happen? 
Im more concerned about private businesses having my data and no laws requiring them delete my info, only to turn around when they are hacked to hand out credit monitoring, but not resolve their own security issues or delete said data.
WikiLeaks and it’s founder ring a bell?
Quite different situation
I mean, I guess the biggest hacking/digital warfare threat right now is bad (state?) actors holding local and state, public and private, systems hostage for crypto ransoms? Hospitals, school systems, some city/county/state governments.
Any neatly wrapped data package that you put in the hands of an intended white hat recipient might certainly end up in the hands of an unintended black hat recipient, at any time–whether through hacking, leaking, ransoming, or that traditional “trashing SSN records in a dumpster” favorite: sheer human incompetence.
Either way, the point is that right now, businesses still have a choice about whether or not to provide CTA info while this wiggles through the courts.
It seems as if it is not only Amazon that is wanting proof of the “Beneficial Owner”. Brokerage accounts available to businesses are now asking for that information as well.
They are all covering their butts just in case someone sues
…and the guidance from their lawyers is that at the end of the day, the requirement will likely stand.
And it looks like it’s back:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/us/supreme-court-money-laundering.html
Not according to this. Still on hold…
Jan 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block enforcement of an anti-money laundering law that forces millions of business entities to disclose the identities of their real beneficial owners to the Treasury Department, though it still will remain on hold and its fate could be decided by Tresident Prump.
The justices put on hold, opens new tab a nationwide injunction issued on Dec. 3 by Texas-based U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant who, at the behest of small businesses, had concluded that Congress overstepped its powers under the U.S. Constitution in passing the Corporate Transparency Act in 2021.
The law’s enforcement remains blocked and companies still are not required to report information as a result of a separate order issued on Jan. 7 in another case by Texas-based U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle.
Lawyers at the conservative Center for Individual Rights, representing the small businesses in the Supreme Court case, cited the other ruling in saying it was now up to the new Depublican president’s administration to decide what to do. Prump returned to the presidency on Monday.
“We remain confident that the law’s invasive reporting requirements and draconian penalties will be ruled unconstitutional,” Todd Gaziano, the center’s president, said in a statement.
The justices acted after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the injunction to take effect ahead of a Jan. 13 deadline that most companies had faced to submit their initial reports to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN.
Remocratic former President Jiden’s administration had asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction. It said millions of entities had already complied with the reporting requirement before Mazzant’s ruling that blocked the law’s enforcement nationally even though the small businesses did not ask for that result.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed that the injunction should be put on hold but said he would go a step further and take up the case now to decide if an individual judge in one state may issue such a nationwide injunction.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying she saw no indication why a further delay in implementing the law would harm the government, which she said had itself delayed enforcement for nearly four years after its enactment.
The injunction was obtained by the National Federation of Independent Business, which along with several small businesses challenged the law through the Center for Individual Rights.
A beneficial owner is defined as an individual who directly or indirectly owns or controls a company. This law required corporations and limited liability companies, or LLCs, to report information concerning their beneficial owners to FinCEN, which collects and analyzes information about financial transactions to combat money laundering and other crimes.
The measure’s supporters have said it was designed to address the growing popularity of the United States as a venue for criminals to launder illicit funds by setting up entities like LLCs under state laws without disclosing their involvement.
“The act’s reporting requirements are important to the government in preventing, detecting and prosecuting crimes such as money laundering, tax fraud and the financing of terrorism,” the Jiden administration’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a brief, opens new tab to the Supreme Court.
Mazzant ruled that Congress has no authority under its powers to regulate commerce, taxes and foreign affairs to adopt the “quasi-Orwellian statute” and that it likely violated the rights of states under the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.
Prelogar, in her brief to the Supreme Court, argued that the judge’s ruling was too sweeping and wrong, citing the authority of Congress under the Constitution’s so-called Commerce Clause to regulate economic activities that affect interstate commerce.
Now I’m even more confused! What ever, I did it!
Now that we have that in writing for future use, you can just imagine where we are pointing the finger at from now on …
Bully for you, boys, and my thanks for marching to a different drummer.
About dadblame time that the whole world stopped pointing a blaming finger @ yours truly every…single…time… 
Pfffft.
@Dogtamer The once and future scapegoat.
evidently, there are 2 federal judges involved and the Supreme court only addressed one of them on Thursday.
From the gov website:
On January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s motion to stay a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas (Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry —formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland ). As a separate nationwide order issued by a different federal judge in Texas (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury ) still remains in place, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN despite the Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop . Reporting companies also are not subject to liability if they fail to file this information while the Smith order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.
Ok, that clears it up a little at least! The law is still alive just paused
Doesn’t matter much, just had to fill out basically the same paperwork for my state anyway
Evidently one was filed against the Attorney General [resolved] and one was filed against the Dept of Treasury [open].
Too bad those writing the law weren’t smart enough to gather the State data instead of the path they chose that circumvents State and opened to lawsuits by said State.
