A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to statements of ownership filed with the secretary of state; and to provide a penalty.
HB1555 would add a new state filing requirement for organizations registering with the North Dakota secretary of state. Under the bill, an organization would have to certify whether it is a “foreign organization of concern” at the time it files its formation or registration documents. If the secretary of state discovers a falsified statement and the filing also violates existing law related to foreign ownership or agricultural land, the filing must be forwarded to the attorney general for possible prosecution. A willful violation of the new filing requirement would be a class B misdemeanor.
The bill also revises North Dakota’s agricultural foreign investment reporting law. It would require foreign persons who must report under the federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act to file a copy of that report with the state agriculture commissioner, who would make the reports public and provide an annual report to legislative management. Failure to file could trigger a civil penalty of up to 25 percent of the fair market value of the person’s ownership interest in the agricultural land. The bill includes a contingent repeal of the state reporting section if the federal disclosure law is repealed.
HB1555 would affect North Dakota’s business registration and agricultural land ownership disclosure laws by adding a new ownership-certification filing to secretary of state registrations and by strengthening state-level reporting and enforcement for foreign ownership of agricultural land. It would create new duties for organizations, the secretary of state, the agriculture commissioner, and the attorney general, while also adding criminal and civil penalties for noncompliance. The bill would also interact with existing statutes governing foreign persons, agricultural land, and foreign ownership concerns, and it would make certain filings public and subject to referral for enforcement.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been treated as a measure aimed at tightening oversight of foreign involvement in land ownership and business formation, with no recorded committee transcript or vote breakdown showing active support or opposition in the provided materials. Its failure on April 7, 2025 suggests it did not advance, but the available context does not show the specific reasons. Overall, the bill’s subject matter suggests a restrictive, enforcement-oriented approach that may have appealed to supporters concerned about foreign influence while raising concerns among those wary of added compliance burdens and penalties.
The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth and severity of the new penalties, the requirement that organizations disclose whether they are foreign organizations of concern, and the bill’s expansion of state enforcement authority. Potential critics could object to the class B misdemeanor for willful violations, the referral of falsified filings to the attorney general, and the civil penalty of up to 25 percent of fair market value for agricultural reporting failures. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, state oversight of foreign ownership, and stronger enforcement of existing restrictions on foreign investment in agricultural land. The contingent repeal tied to the federal disclosure law also suggests concern about duplicative regulation and the bill’s dependence on federal law.