Assesses fees on remittances of money to foreign countries and dedicates proceeds of the fees
Summary
HB 670 creates a new fee on money transmissions sent to locations outside the United States by licensed money transmitters and their agents. For transfers under $500, the fee is $5; for transfers of $500 or more, the fee is $5 plus 5% of the amount over $500. The bill requires the fees to be collected by the licensee or agent, remitted quarterly to the Office of Financial Institutions commissioner, and then transferred to the state treasury.
The bill also establishes the Human Trafficking Prevention and Victim Services Fund as a special fund in the state treasury. All fee proceeds collected under the bill would be deposited into that fund and used exclusively for human trafficking prevention initiatives and services for victims of human trafficking. The bill authorizes the commissioner to suspend the license of any money transmitter or agent that fails to collect or remit the required fees, and bars reapplication until all amounts and forms are submitted.
Impact
HB 670 would add a new layer of regulation and cost to the money transmission industry in Louisiana for international remittances. It does not change the state’s basic licensing framework for money transmitters, but it imposes a mandatory fee collection and remittance obligation on OFI licensees and their agents for transfers sent outside the United States. The bill also creates a dedicated special fund and directs those revenues to human trafficking prevention and victim services, thereby earmarking a new revenue stream for those purposes.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be framed as a public-safety and victim-services measure rather than a general revenue bill. The stated purpose of funding anti-trafficking efforts suggests a policy rationale likely to attract support from advocates for victim services, though the absence of discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill text itself.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the burden the fee places on remittance customers and money transmission businesses, especially those serving immigrant communities or people sending funds abroad. Opponents could argue that the fee functions like a tax on international remittances and may disproportionately affect lower-income senders. Supporters would likely emphasize the dedicated use of the proceeds for human trafficking prevention and victim services, and the bill’s enforcement mechanism gives the commissioner authority to suspend noncompliant licensees, which could also raise concerns about administrative burden and compliance risk.