Mr. Garcia, in an interview with The Times earlier this month, disputed the notion that Mr. Spitzer had been selected for prosecution by Republican administration officials and said the investigation began only after his office learned of questionable payments made by Mr. Spitzer to a front company for the prostitution ring. “That’s how it came up,” Mr. Garcia said. “That is how it started.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer declined to comment.

The committee also plans to more broadly examine the government’s practice of reviewing hundreds of thousands of suspicious activity reports filed by banks each year and whether such reports are being used appropriately.

Use of such reports was expanded by the Patriot Act and has previously been a subject of inquiry for the House Financial Services Committee, whose chairman is Representative Barney Frank. The committee made its initial inquiries into the Spitzer case over the summer, but its review has been put on hold amid the financial crisis. The committee has played a central role in oversight of the federal bailout of Wall Street.

Mr. Frank, Mr. Capuano and two other lawmakers signed a letter sent in July to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a branch of the Treasury Department that serves as a repository of financial intelligence. The letter was also signed by Representative Melvin L. Watt, a North Carolina Democrat who is chairman of a subcommittee on oversight and investigations, and Mr. LaTourette.

The lawmakers asked for answers to a series of detailed questions about the use of suspicious activity reports, or SARS, in the Spitzer case, including whether the case was “precipitated by a ‘tip’ to a law enforcement agency by some person(s) outside the law enforcement or banking community.” Among the other questions: “Was there an investigation of Governor Spitzer in progress before any SAR was filed?” and whether similar transactions made by a “nonpolitical, nonpublic person triggered the filing of a SAR by a bank.”

The letter also seeks a detailed timeline of when and to whom the suspicious activity reports were filed and whether they were expedited or treated in any unusual way.

“Obviously we wouldn’t have written the letter if we didn’t have questions about it,” Mr. Watt said.