PROPERTY/UNCLAIMED: Provides with respect to abandoned digital assets
HB 1256 updates Louisiana’s unclaimed property law to specifically address abandoned digital assets. It adds definitions for digital assets, digital asset accounts, digital asset holders, digital asset wallets, private keys, and designated custodians, and it treats digital assets as a form of property subject to the state’s abandoned property framework. The bill establishes when a digital asset account is presumed abandoned, generally after three years of inactivity, and clarifies what counts as owner activity or interest in a digital asset account.
The bill also creates a detailed process for notice, reporting, custody, liquidation, and transfer of abandoned digital assets. Holders must notify owners before reporting, report abandoned digital assets to the administrator, and either transfer the asset or, in some cases, liquidate it and remit proceeds. If a holder cannot transfer the asset because it lacks the private key or other authority, it must continue to maintain the asset and periodically check whether transfer becomes possible. The bill further limits when the administrator may sell or liquidate digital assets, sets valuation and sale rules, and excludes digital assets from the ordinary public sale rules that apply to other abandoned property.
HB 1256 amends Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 9 governing unclaimed property by inserting a new digital-asset-specific regime into the abandoned property chapter. It changes the legal treatment of cryptocurrency, virtual currency, stablecoins, NFTs, and other digital-only assets by defining how they are reported, held, transferred, liquidated, and valued when presumed abandoned. It also imposes duties on holders, the state treasurer/administrator, and any designated custodian, while providing liability protections and operational rules for custody and sale.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported, passing the House with overwhelming margins of 89-3 and 90-2 before being signed into law as Act 891. The voting history suggests general agreement that the state needed a modernized framework for abandoned digital assets. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows little formalized opposition in the materials supplied.
The main points of potential contention are operational and technical rather than ideological: whether holders can actually transfer digital assets without the private key, whether the administrator can securely custody assets in native form, and when liquidation is appropriate. The bill also addresses concerns about cost, security, and regulatory limitations by allowing liquidation when native custody is impractical or more expensive than the asset’s value. Another likely issue is the balance between preserving owner value and giving the state flexibility to liquidate assets, especially for assets that may be volatile or difficult to store.