Al Rajhi Bank is challenging part of the Patriot Act in a motion to quash filed against the Justice and Treasury Departments at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The motions asks to quash an administrative subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon. The Office is prosecuting a conspiracy case in which a man is allaged to have smuggle $151,000 in travelers and cashier's checks out of the United States and cashing them at an Al Rajhi branch in Saudi Arabia.

In July, prosecutors served Al Rajhi with the subpoena requesting information related to the checks, according to the lawsuit. They used a section of the Patriot Act which allows investigators to force foreign banks to produce documents located outside the United States without a court order.

The bank's Saudi regulator, however, claims that providing the documents would be a criminal offense under his country's laws, and that the request had not been made appropriataly through diplomatic channels.

In response, Justice Department officials allegedly told Al Rajhi executives that if they failed to comply with the subpoena, they would consider options under the Patriot Act that could adversely affect the bank. Those "options" included having the Treasury Department designate the bank as a money laundering concern, and terminating its correspondent accounts, accounts which allow foreign banks to make transactions in the United States.

Nonetheless, Justice Department officials allegedly later told Al Rajhi executives that if they did not comply with the subpoena, the agency would consider options under the Patriot Act ¿that could adversely affect the bank.¿ Those included asking the Treasury Department to designate the bank as a money laundering concern, and terminating its ¿correspondent accounts,¿ which allow foreign banks to make transactions in the United States.

Al Rajhi attorney argues that the section of the Patriot Act at issue allows the Justice and Treasury Departments to issue subpoenas and use penalties to enforce them without a judge's consent.