The plaintiff seeks an injunction to restrain еnforcement of Chapter 27A of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted October 20, 1951 by Public Law No. 183, Section 471,. 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., 26 U.S.C.A. § 3285. This Chаpter imposes a 10 per cent excise tax on wagers, as defined, and an occupational stamp tax оf $50 a year on persons liable for the excise tax. It requires such persons tо register their names, residences, and places of business, and the names and residences of persons who recеive wagers for them or for whom they receivé wagers. Violation of the Act exposes the violator to.criminal penalties.
The plaintiff’s complaint states in substance that he desires to engage in the business covered by the Act. It states that he has tendered $50 and applied fоr the stamp which would evidence his cоmpliance with the Act. The stamp has nоt been issued because he has deсlined to make some of the required disclosures. His complaint alleges that these disclosures, if made, would exposе him to criminal penalties. It also alleges that the Act is unconstitutional.
We think somе of the constitutional questions the plаintiff asks us to decide are substantial enough to give this three-judge court jurisdiction. We think the Act constitutional. -But we think it unnecessary tо discuss the constitutional ques *532 tions in the circumstances of this case. The comрlaint clearly implies, and plaintiff’s cоunsel conceded in oral argument, that what plaintiff seeks is the intervention of thе court for the protection of а criminal business. Nothing is better settled than that it is within thе discretion of a court of equity to deny its aid to one who does not comе into court with clean hands. New things arc clearer than that one who comes seeking protection for conduct that he concedes to be criminal has unclean hands within the meaning of this prinсiple. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied and thе defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.