Relative to restrictions on acquisition of ownership, controlling, and occupancy interests in real property by certain foreign principals on or around certain military installations, and criminal penalties and civil forfeiture procedures for illegal acquisition.
SB 162 would create a new set of restrictions in New Hampshire law governing real estate transactions involving certain foreign principals from designated “foreign countries of concern,” including China, Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The bill bars those foreign principals, and their agents, from acquiring ownership or controlling interests in real property, or leasing/occupying property, within 10 miles of specified military and national security facilities in Concord, Manchester, Portsmouth, Pease, and New Boston. It also defines the covered facilities and the covered property interests, and applies the restrictions to both purchases and leases.
The bill adds a new affidavit requirement for any person or entity buying or leasing property within the restricted zone. The affidavit must be filed with the attorney general within one business day of closing or delivery of access, and must certify that the buyer or tenant is not a prohibited foreign principal or agent and understands the law’s restrictions. The bill also requires sellers, landlords, and their agents to provide written notice of the affidavit requirement before signing a purchase, lease, or rental agreement for covered property. The act is set to take effect January 1, 2026.
SB 162 would amend RSA 477 by adding a new subdivision regulating ownership, control, and occupancy of real property near protected military installations. It creates new civil and criminal enforcement tools, including a $500 civil penalty for failing to file the required affidavit, a Class A misdemeanor for a natural person who illegally acquires covered property, and a Class B felony for an entity that does so. The bill also authorizes the attorney general and Department of Justice to pursue forfeiture of property acquired in violation of the law, with procedures for seizure, notice, court review, and disposition of forfeited property. The fiscal note indicates indeterminable state and local costs due to possible criminal enforcement, incarceration, and civil litigation, but no expected revenue impact.
The available materials suggest the bill was introduced and advanced as a national-security and military-protection measure, with sponsors from the Senate supporting tighter restrictions around sensitive installations. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or debate to characterize. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsors, the overall sentiment appears supportive of restricting foreign ownership near military sites.
The main policy tension in SB 162 is between security concerns and the breadth of the property restrictions. Potential points of contention include the bill’s categorical ban on ownership, control, and occupancy by foreign principals from specified countries, the 10-mile radius around protected facilities, and the use of criminal penalties and forfeiture for violations. Another likely issue is the administrative burden created by the affidavit and notice requirements for ordinary real estate transactions, as well as the possibility of civil and criminal exposure if a transaction later proves noncompliant. No specific objections or counterarguments are included in the provided record, but these are the most apparent areas where disagreement could arise.