Gagnon outlines bill allowing banks to delay suspect transactions to protect vulnerable adults; members press on age, privacy

Representative Gagnon explained a companion bill to H5162 that aims to help financial institutions intercept suspected exploitation of vulnerable adults by creating a process for emergency contacts and temporary holds. "What they'll do is if they see that there's unusual activity ... it gives them an opportunity to review the transactions," Gagnon said, describing a process that allows institutions to contact designated people and, in some cases, delay or refuse transactions.

The bill, Gagnon said, allows institutions to notify authorized parties, share relevant records with those parties and temporarily hold a transaction; he described an expiration mechanism for holds and said the bill aligns the definition of "financial exploitation" with an existing securities definition. He said institutions are protected from liability when they act in good faith but would remain liable if they participated in exploitation.

The measure drew questions from several members. "Why the number 55?" Rep. Edgerton asked, adding that 55 felt low for an age threshold. Gagnon acknowledged different ages were considered and that the drafters chose 55 because some senior associations set eligibility at that age; he said the approach was intended to include a wider group of potentially vulnerable adults. Edgerton later said she "wasn't joking about the age number" and that she would have preferred an older threshold.

Rep. Gillum pressed on how widely information could be shared, saying, "that spooks me" and asking whether patient information might end up shared beyond people the subject designated. Gagnon responded that confidentiality protections are included and that customers would fill out forms designating who the bank may contact; "it's not like it's gonna go out to the general public," he said. Rep. Herb Kirschman and Rep. Guffey described testimony and data showing the elderly are frequent targets of phone scams and reported broad support from banks and consumer groups for the concept.

Several members requested debate and the presiding officer placed the bill on the contested calendar for further consideration later in the session. The record shows the bill was not adopted on final passage during this sitting; rather, debate was scheduled under the contested-calendar process.

What happens next: the House placed the bill on the contested calendar for additional debate and potential amendment before a final vote.