Quote:
(2)Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this subdivision or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.
I was looking into this at a law library a couple months ago, and was reading some case law on the issue (I'll have to find the specific cases again, and will post them then) and found that the use of the original statute - 12 U.S.C. § 95a - is no longer recognized by the court as having authority. The courts no longer recognizing the statute as having authority along with the aforementioned reason of redundancy is why 12 U.S.C. § 95a has since been omitted.