NADAYAB YAH JOSEPH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (2026)

ORDER

Petitioner filed a Motion for Order Pursuant to Customer Challenge Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq. (“Motion,” ECF No. 1), seeking to quash an administrative subpoena the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued to TD Bank, N.A. (“TD Bank”), Petitioner's bank. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

I.

The Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Command (“CID”) is investigating whether Petitioner, an active-duty service member, violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”), 10 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., by fraudulently claiming and receiving from the Army a housing allowance for his wife and stepdaughter. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3; ECF No. 3 at 2.) At CID's request, the DoD Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) prepared, but did not serve, an administrative subpoena duces tecum to TD Bank dated July 8, 2026, instructing it to produce “information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence pertaining to” any of Petitioner's TD Bank accounts from April 1, 2024, to July 8, 2026. (“Subpoena,” ECF No. 1-1 at 3–5.)

On July 16, 2026, before serving the Subpoena on TD Bank, an agent for CID personally served the Petitioner with the required customer notice information about the Subpoena, which included the following documents: (1) a copy of the Subpoena and Appendix A thereto (ECF No. 1-1 at 3–5), (2) Notice to Customer (id. at 1–2), (3) Statement of Customer Rights Under the Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (id. at 6), (4) a blank Motion to Challenge Government's Access to Financial Records and Instructions for Completing and Filing the form (id. at 7–8), and (5) a blank Certificate of Service (ECF No. 3 at 7). Ten days later, on July 26, 2026, Petitioner emailed Special Agent Spann to inform him that Petitioner planned to challenge the Subpoena. (Id.) The following day, Special Agent Spann reminded Petitioner that any challenge to the Subpoena must be filed with an appropriate federal court and informed him that CID would serve the Subpoena on TD Bank by August 7, 2026. (Id.) On either July 26 or 27, 2026, Petitioner mailed the Motion to the Court. (See ECF No. 1-2.) The Motion arrived on August 10, 2026. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-2.) On August 18, 2026, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to the Motion (ECF No. 2), which it did on September 1, 2026 (ECF No. 3).

II.

Under 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a), a customer may challenge a government agency's subpoena for financial records by (1) affirming that he is a customer of the financial agency subject to the subpoena; (2) stating his reasons for believing the records are not relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry; (3) filing a motion to quash or an application to enjoin the agency from obtaining the records; and (4) serving the agency with copies of the motion and accompanying documents. The customer must file a challenge to a government agency's subpoena within ten days of having been personally served with it or within fourteen days from the date on which the subpoena was mailed to the customer. 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a). The customer must also serve the challenge on the government agency that issued the subpoena. Id.

III.

The Motion is procedurally deficient, so the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenge to the Subpoena. Section 3410 “represents a narrow and conditional waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity,” and a district court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a government agency's subpoena for financial records that fails to strictly comply with the statute. Mackey v. SEC, No. 3:96-mc-407-AHN, 1997 WL 114801, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 1997); see SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 745 (1984) (“A customer's ability to challenge a subpoena is cabined by strict procedural requirements.”).

Here, Petitioner filed his Motion out of time. Petitioner had until July 26, 2026 (10 days after he was personally served with the Subpoena) to file a challenge with the Court, but Petitioner did not file the Motion until August 10, 2026. See 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a); see, e.g., Hernandez v. Dep't of Defense, No. 1:24-mc-00029-AJT, 2025 WL 262353, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2025) (denying motion because court lacks jurisdiction where customer challenge was untimely filed).

The record also contains insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner timely complied with requirement (4) of Section 3410(a) (proper service on the government agency) or that he effectuated service on the government agency at all. Although Petitioner informed CID Special Agent Spann of his intent to challenge the Subpoena, the statute required Petitioner to serve his Motion on the Inspector General. No certificate of service or any other document accompanied the Motion demonstrating that Petitioner timely served the government agency by delivering or mailing copies by July 26, 2026. See 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a) (“Within ten days of service or within fourteen days of mailing of a subpena, ․ a customer may file a motion to quash ․ with copies served upon the Government authority.”); Thomas v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying motion because court lacks jurisdiction where customer failed to properly serve his challenge on government).

The DoD served Petitioner with detailed instructions for challenging the Subpoena (ECF No. 1-1 at 1–2), but he failed to comply. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the Motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court DENIES the Motion. (ECF No. 1.)

2. The Clerk must send a copy of this Order to:

a. Special Agents Robert F. Kelty, Laura Winstead, and John Spann, at 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico, Virginia 22134 and at john.r.spann2.civ@army.mil.;

b. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense, c/o DoD IG Subpoena Program Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 09A27, West Tower, Alexandria, Virginia 22350-1500; and

c. Petitioner Nadayab Yah Joseph at nadayab.y.joseph.mil@army.mil and at CMR 469, Box 770 APO, AE 09227.

Entered this 8th day of September 2026.

Alexandria, Virginia

William B. Porter United States Magistrate Judge