Financial institutions: other; consumer financial services act; revise internal references related to money transmission services. Amends secs. 2, 5, 6 & 10g of 1988 PA 161 (MCL 487.2052 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0835'26
SB 836 amends the Consumer Financial Services Act to update internal statutory references and conform Michigan law to the newer money transmission framework. The bill revises definitions and cross-references in the act so that money transmission services are tied to the money transmission modernization act, while also updating agency names and other terminology. It also makes related technical changes to licensing provisions, including application requirements, net worth standards, surety bond or letter-of-credit requirements, and enforcement provisions for fraud and money laundering.
The bill preserves the existing licensing structure for consumer financial service providers but adjusts how the law applies to entities engaged in money transmission. For applicants that intend to provide money transmission services, the bill links bond requirements to the modernization act and updates the financial licensing acts list to include the new act. It also clarifies that the commissioner may suspend or prohibit individuals involved in fraud, dishonesty, money laundering, or breach of trust from working for or controlling licensed entities, including those involved in money transmission.
In practical terms, the bill affects license applicants, licensees, control persons, and consumers who use services regulated under the Consumer Financial Services Act, especially money transmitters and related financial service businesses. It does not create a new regulatory program so much as align existing law with the newer money transmission statutes and current agency structure. The bill is set to take effect January 1, 2026, and is contingent on enactment of SB 835.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and context appears to be procedural and technical rather than controversial. The caption describes the measure as revising internal references related to money transmission services, suggesting a cleanup or conformity bill. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s narrow, administrative purpose.
The main point of potential contention would likely be the regulatory burden on licensees, especially the bond and net worth requirements for money transmission businesses, but the bill text itself does not show active debate over those provisions. Because the measure is tied to another bill and updates enforcement authority, any concerns would likely center on compliance costs, consumer protection, and the scope of the commissioner’s authority rather than on the technical amendments themselves.
SB 836 amends MCL 487.2052, 487.2055, 487.2056, and 487.2060g within the Consumer Financial Services Act to update statutory references, incorporate the money transmission modernization act, and align licensing, bonding, and enforcement provisions with current law. It affects the Department of Insurance and Financial Services and the commissioner’s oversight of licensees, applicants, control persons, and consumers in regulated financial services, especially money transmission businesses.
The bill appears to be generally neutral and administrative in nature, with the available context indicating a technical conformity measure rather than a policy overhaul. No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public debate to suggest strong support or opposition. The overall tone of the bill is one of modernization and statutory cleanup.
There is no documented committee or floor debate in the provided materials, so no specific opposition is recorded. The most likely areas of concern are the compliance obligations for money transmitters and other licensees, including net worth thresholds, surety bond requirements, and the commissioner’s authority to suspend or prohibit individuals for fraud, dishonesty, money laundering, or breach of trust. Any contention would likely come from regulated businesses concerned about regulatory costs or enforcement discretion, while consumer-protection interests would likely favor the added safeguards.