With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". criminal statutes. In addition, the disclosures do not subject the defendant to a real danger of self-incrimination since the source of the funds is not disclosed----Thus, the defendant has failed to show that the Bank Secrecy Act violated any individual right [that] ... Grosso seek to protect.”). Likewise, the provision at issue here, 31 C.F.R. § 1010.420, applies to hundreds of thousands of foreign bank accounts. “There is nothing inherently illegal about having or being a beneficiary of an offshore foreign banking account.” In re Grand Jury Investigation M.H., 648 F.3d at 1074. Because the record-keeping requirements of 31 C.F.R. § 1010.420 do not target inherently illegal activity, the provision is essentially regulatory in nature. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 696 F.3d at 435 (<HOLDING>); In re Special February 2011-1 Grand Jury

A: holding that because the bsas recordkeeping requirements serve purposes unrelated to criminal law enforcement and because the provisions do not exclusively target people engaged in criminal activity we conclude that the requirements are essentially regulatory satisfying the required records exceptions first prong
B: holding that sornas registration requirements and criminal enforcement provision are proper under the commerce clause
C: holding civil factual sufficiency preservation requirements do not apply in criminal context
D: holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes
A.