Concerning the protection of vulnerable adults from financial exploitation in relation to financial institutions.
HB 26-1110 creates Colorado’s “Adults’ Security and Safeguards from Exploitation in Transactions Act” (the ASSET Act) to help financial institutions identify and respond to suspected financial exploitation of vulnerable adults. The bill defines an “eligible adult” as a person age 70 or older, or an adult 18 or older who is susceptible to mistreatment or self-neglect because of impaired ability to secure services or make responsible decisions. It also defines “financial exploitation” broadly to include deception, harassment, intimidation, undue influence, coercion, and misuse of an adult’s property in ways that can affect health care, basic needs, or obligations.
Under the bill, a qualified employee at a bank or credit union who reasonably suspects exploitation must notify local law enforcement or the county adult protective services agency, and may notify a trusted third party previously designated by or reasonably associated with the adult. The bill also authorizes a financial institution to delay a disbursement from an account when it reasonably believes a requested transaction may result in exploitation, provided it gives timely written notice, continues an internal review, and follows the bill’s time limits and release/refusal rules. Institutions may seek court orders for additional protection, and they are granted immunity from civil or administrative liability when acting in good faith under the act.
The bill also requires financial institutions to provide relevant records to adult protective services agencies and law enforcement during a referral or investigation, while making clear that those records are not public records under the Colorado Open Records Act. It further states that compliance with the act does not replace other mandatory reporting duties under Colorado law. The act applies to transactions attempted or occurring on or after its effective date, which is tied to the end of the legislative session and possible referendum procedures.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is supportive and protective, with the measure ultimately passing and being signed by the governor. The bill’s framing emphasizes prevention of elder abuse and exploitation, and its structure gives financial institutions tools and legal protections to intervene when suspicious transactions arise. No committee transcript or recorded vote data was provided, so there is no detailed evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between consumer protection and account-holder autonomy, the authority given to banks and credit unions to delay transactions, and the scope of information sharing with law enforcement and adult protective services. Another possible issue is the breadth of the “eligible adult” definition and the discretion afforded to employees to determine when suspicion is reasonable. The immunity provisions and the ability to withhold notice from a suspected exploiter also suggest the bill was designed to protect institutions and victims while limiting liability and operational risk.
The bill adds a new article to Title 11 of the Colorado Revised Statutes governing financial institutions’ response to suspected exploitation of vulnerable adults. It creates reporting, notification, transaction-delay, records-access, and immunity provisions for banks and credit unions, and it interacts with existing adult protective services and mandatory reporting laws without replacing them. It also makes relevant records available to agencies and law enforcement but exempts those records from public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act.
The general sentiment appears favorable and protective, with the bill advancing to enactment and reflecting a policy goal of preventing elder and vulnerable-adult financial abuse. The absence of recorded committee testimony or vote details limits the ability to identify specific supporters or opponents, but the bill’s final passage and signature indicate broad enough support to become law.
Likely areas of contention include whether financial institutions should be allowed to delay customer disbursements based on suspicion, how much discretion employees should have in identifying exploitation, and whether the notice and records-sharing provisions adequately protect privacy and account-holder rights. Stakeholders most likely to focus on these issues are banks and credit unions, consumer advocates, elder-rights advocates, and civil-liberties or privacy interests. The immunity provisions may also be debated as either necessary protection for good-faith intervention or as a potential shield for overreach.