Fiduciary Institutions - Exploitation of Seniors and Vulnerable Adults - Protections and Required Referral (Vulnerable Adult Banking Protection Act)
SB 753, the Vulnerable Adult Banking Protection Act, authorizes fiduciary institutions such as banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations to intervene when they reasonably believe a requested disbursement from an eligible adult’s account may be part of financial exploitation. An “eligible adult” is a Maryland resident who is at least 65 years old or is a vulnerable adult. The bill allows an institution to delay or deny a disbursement, provided it gives written notice to authorized account parties within four business days and reports the concern to Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, or a State’s Attorney. It also permits the institution to notify a trusted contact for the adult, unless that person is suspected of being involved in the exploitation.
The bill further requires fiduciary institutions to provide relevant financial records to Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, or a State’s Attorney when a suspected exploitation referral is made or upon request. Those records may include historical and recent transaction information, and the bill specifies that such records are not public records. The delay period generally expires when the institution determines the transaction is safe or after 15 business days, but it may be extended up to 25 business days under certain circumstances, including by request of an investigating agency or by court order.
SB 753 also gives fiduciary institutions immunity from administrative or civil liability when they act in good faith and with reasonable care in making the required notices or in delaying or denying a disbursement. In effect, the bill creates a statutory safe harbor for financial institutions that take protective action to prevent elder financial abuse or exploitation of vulnerable adults.
The bill passed both chambers unanimously, with a 38-0 Senate vote and a 131-0 House vote, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. The committee report was favorable, and no committee transcript was provided showing significant debate. The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive, likely reflecting a shared policy goal of protecting seniors and vulnerable adults from fraud, coercion, and misuse of funds.
The main policy tension in bills of this kind is balancing consumer protection against account-holder autonomy and privacy. Potential points of contention include the authority given to banks to delay or deny transactions based on a reasonable belief of exploitation, the disclosure of confidential financial records to government agencies, and the possibility of notifying a trusted contact. The bill addresses some of those concerns by limiting notice to suspected cases, excluding suspected bad actors from notice, and granting immunity only when institutions act in good faith and with reasonable care.
SB 753 adds a new section to the Financial Institutions Article creating a formal process for fiduciary institutions to pause suspicious disbursements, notify protective and law enforcement authorities, share relevant financial records, and contact trusted third parties when elder or vulnerable-adult exploitation is suspected. It also reinforces the definition of “vulnerable adult” in the Family Law Article and establishes confidentiality protections for records disclosed under the new law. The bill primarily affects banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, State’s Attorneys, and account holders who are seniors or vulnerable adults.
The recorded legislative sentiment is overwhelmingly favorable. The bill received unanimous passage in both the Senate and House, and the committee report was favorable, suggesting broad agreement that the measure fills a needed consumer-protection gap. The absence of recorded dissent or negative votes indicates little formal opposition in the available history.
No explicit opposition appears in the available transcripts or voting record, but the bill’s structure suggests the most likely areas of concern are the breadth of bank discretion to delay or deny transactions, the sharing of confidential financial information, and the potential for false positives that could temporarily restrict access to funds. Supporters are likely to include elder-abuse advocates, financial institutions seeking clearer authority and immunity, and law enforcement/protective services agencies; any concerns would most likely come from privacy advocates or those worried about overreach and mistaken intervention.