Money wire transmissions; Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Act; increasing certain fee and percentage amount; effective date.
HB2169 amends Oklahoma’s Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Act to increase the fee structure imposed on money transmission and wire transmitter transactions. For transactions within the United States, the bill raises the fee to $5 on transfers up to $500 and adds 1% of the amount above $500. For transactions outside the United States, it sets a $10 fee on transfers up to $500 and adds 2% of the amount above $500. The bill also requires licensees and their delegates to post a notice informing customers that they may claim an Oklahoma income tax credit equal to the fee paid, if they file an individual income tax return with a valid Social Security number or taxpayer identification number.
The bill changes how the collected fees are handled by directing them to a renamed revolving fund, the Organized Crime and Human Trafficking Revolving Fund, administered by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control. The fund remains a continuing, non-lapsing fund and may be used for drug enforcement purposes. The bill also preserves enforcement mechanisms, including quarterly remittance to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, possible suspension of a licensee’s license for noncompliance, and the ability of the State Banking Commissioner to pursue a surety bond claim at the Tax Commission’s request.
HB2169’s practical impact is to increase the cost of money wire transfers, especially larger transfers and transfers sent outside the United States, while strengthening the state’s revenue stream for narcotics-related enforcement activities. It also broadens the stated purpose of the revolving fund from drug money laundering and wire transmitter enforcement to include organized crime and human trafficking, reflecting a wider enforcement focus. The bill affects licensed money transmitters, their delegates, the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the State Banking Commissioner, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous “do pass” votes in the House Public Safety Committee and the House Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight Committee. However, the House third reading vote was more divided, passing 51-37, indicating some broader concern or hesitation among members. No committee transcript is available, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented here.
The main points of contention likely center on the higher transaction fees, the burden on money transfer customers and licensed transmitters, and whether the fee increase is an appropriate tool for funding enforcement. Support appears to have come from members favoring stronger funding for drug enforcement and anti-trafficking efforts, while opposition likely reflected concerns about cost, compliance burdens, and the scope of the fee increase.
HB2169 amends 63 O.S. 2021, Section 2-503.1j and Section 2-107b. It increases mandatory fees on money transmission and wire transfer transactions, requires quarterly remittance to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, authorizes license suspension for nonpayment or nonreporting, and renames the related revolving fund to the Organized Crime and Human Trafficking Revolving Fund. The bill affects licensed money transmitters, customers using wire transfer services, the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the State Banking Commissioner, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control.
The bill appears to have had strong support in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous do-pass votes, suggesting agreement on the policy goals of increasing enforcement funding and tightening compliance. The House floor vote was more contested, however, with a 51-37 passage that indicates meaningful opposition or concern among some members. Overall, the sentiment seems favorable among committee members and supporters, but more divided in the full House.
The primary contention is the increased fee burden on money transmission customers and the businesses that must collect and remit the fees. Critics may view the higher charges, especially on international transfers, as a cost increase for consumers and a compliance burden for licensees. Supporters likely emphasize the need for additional funding for drug enforcement, organized crime investigations, and human trafficking enforcement, as well as the tax credit notice intended to offset customer costs. The broader scope of the renamed fund may also have been a point of discussion, since it expands the stated enforcement purpose beyond drug money laundering alone.