Revises provisions relating to financial institutions. (BDR 55-225)
SB369 revises Nevada law governing financial institutions, credit unions, savings banks, and thrift companies to add new protections for older persons and vulnerable persons against financial exploitation. The bill requires these institutions, before opening a “covered account” for an older or vulnerable person, to ask the prospective account holder to either designate an emergency financial contact or formally decline to do so. For existing covered accounts opened before October 1, 2025, the account holder may later add such a contact upon request.
For any “covered transaction” over $5,000 involving a covered account with an emergency financial contact on file, the institution must attempt to contact that person within 24 hours and may not proceed until at least 24 hours after the attempt, or until any temporary delay under existing exploitation-reporting law expires. If staff suspect exploitation after attempting contact, they must report it through the institution’s designated reporter process. The bill also extends existing exploitation-reporting, delay, and immunity provisions to credit unions, savings banks, and thrift companies, and it creates a private right of action allowing an affected account holder to recover treble damages if an institution violates the new contact-and-delay requirements and the violation results in exploitation.
The bill amends multiple chapters of Nevada Revised Statutes, including provisions governing financial institutions, credit unions, savings banks, thrift companies, and powers of attorney. It adds new definitions for covered accounts, covered transactions, and emergency financial contacts, and it imposes new account-opening and transaction-review duties on regulated financial entities. It also expands existing elder/vulnerable-person exploitation reporting and temporary-delay rules so they apply across all four types of institutions, while preserving immunity for good-faith reporting and required protective actions. In addition, it modifies the power-of-attorney statute so that a person may refuse to accept an acknowledged power of attorney when a report of exploitation has been made or when a designated reporter has delayed a transaction under the new or existing elder-exploitation provisions.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or roll-call sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and anti-exploitation bill, with a generally protective posture toward older adults and vulnerable persons. The inclusion of immunity for institutions and a civil remedy for harmed account holders suggests an effort to balance compliance incentives with liability protection.
The main policy tension in SB369 is between stronger safeguards against financial exploitation and the added operational burden on financial institutions. Institutions must collect emergency-contact information, monitor qualifying transactions, attempt contact within a short timeframe, and potentially delay customer transactions, which may raise concerns about privacy, customer autonomy, and administrative cost. Another point of potential contention is the private right of action with treble damages, which creates significant exposure if an institution fails to follow the new procedures. At the same time, the bill narrows that exposure by requiring proof that an emergency financial contact had been designated and by extending immunity for good-faith compliance actions.