To amend section 169.01 and to enact sections 169.20, 169.21, 169.22, 169.23, 169.24, 169.25, and 169.26 of the Revised Code to provide for the safekeeping and management of unclaimed digital assets.
HB426 would update Ohio’s unclaimed-funds law to expressly cover digital assets such as virtual currency, cryptocurrency, stablecoins, nonfungible tokens, and other digital-only assets that confer economic or access rights. The bill defines key terms like “digital asset account,” “private key,” “qualified custodian,” and “act of ownership interest,” and sets a two-year abandonment period for digital assets based on returned communications or the owner’s last demonstrated activity. Once an asset is presumed abandoned, the holder must report and deliver it in native form to a state-designated qualified custodian if the holder has the necessary private keys, or retain it until transfer becomes possible if it does not.
The bill also creates a state process for safekeeping, custody, and eventual liquidation of abandoned digital assets. The director of commerce must select a qualified custodian within one year of the effective date, using criteria focused on cybersecurity, key management, regulatory compliance, reporting, and owner-reunification practices. The custodian must keep the asset in native form for at least two years before sale, and any sale proceeds are deposited into Ohio’s unclaimed funds trust fund. The bill further requires a formal agreement between the director and the custodian, including duties, compensation, termination terms, and audit rights.
In terms of state law, HB426 amends existing section 169.01 and adds new sections 169.20 through 169.26 to Ohio’s Revised Code. It expands the statutory definition of unclaimed funds to include digital assets while expressly excluding them from the older unclaimed-funds categories covered by sections 169.01 to 169.17. The bill also preserves the existing unclaimed-funds framework for traditional money and intangible property, making clear that the new digital-asset provisions operate separately from the rest of the chapter.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s introduction is pragmatic and modernization-oriented: it appears aimed at giving the state a legal mechanism to handle abandoned crypto and other digital holdings rather than leaving them outside the unclaimed-property system. Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate or formal support/opposition to gauge broader sentiment.
Potential points of contention likely center on custody and control of private keys, the feasibility of transferring assets in native form, cybersecurity risks, and the state’s role in selecting and overseeing a private qualified custodian. Other possible concerns include how abandonment is determined for digital assets, whether the two-year period is appropriate, and how liquidation should occur for assets without a clear market price. The bill’s carve-out from the existing unclaimed-funds rules may also raise questions about how digital assets should be treated relative to other abandoned property.
HB426 would expand Ohio’s unclaimed property laws to include digital assets and create a new statutory process for reporting, custody, safekeeping, and eventual sale of abandoned digital holdings. It would require holders to transfer abandoned assets to a state-designated qualified custodian when possible, direct the Department of Commerce to oversee the process, and deposit sale proceeds into the unclaimed funds trust fund. The bill would also amend section 169.01 and add sections 169.20 through 169.26, while expressly keeping the new digital-asset rules separate from the existing unclaimed-funds provisions for traditional property.
The bill appears to be received as a modernization measure intended to bring Ohio’s unclaimed-property laws in line with the growth of cryptocurrency and other digital assets. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support in the materials beyond the bill’s introduction. The overall tone of the legislation is administrative and technical rather than ideological.
Likely areas of disagreement include whether the state should take custody of abandoned digital assets, how securely private keys can be managed, and whether the Department of Commerce can reliably select and supervise a qualified custodian. Stakeholders may also differ on the abandonment standard, the two-year holding period before sale, and the mechanics of selling assets that may be volatile or lack a clear market price. Digital-asset holders, custodians, compliance professionals, and consumer-protection advocates could each have different views on these implementation issues.