is not directed at an inherently suspect group, we conclude that the reporting requirement does not present such a substantial risk of incrimination so as to outweigh the governmental interest in requiring such a disclosure.” Id. at 641 (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Id.; see also United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1487 (6th Cir. 1991) (“The Bank Secrecy Act applies to all persons making foreign deposits, most' of whom do so with legally obtained funds. The requirement is imposed in the banking regulatory field which is not infused na Dated September 12, 2011, 691 F.3d at 909 (finding first prong of Grosso test met); In re Grand Jury Investigation M.H., 648 F.3d at 1075 (<HOLDING>); In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 10-04-400, No.
holding that gun shop records kept pursuant to government requirements are admissible business records holding that records kept under 31 cfr  1010420 were essentially regulatory because the information sought was not inherently criminal and therefore being required to provide that information would generally not establish a significant link in a chain of evidence tending to prove guilt holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential holding that the defendants had significant privacy interest in being able to proceed forward with their lives by being able to control information concerning criminal charges never filed against them holding that information required for participation in a voluntary program is information that a party was obliged to furnish