Oklahoma Senate Bill SB2075

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Money transmissions; modifying fee amount. Effective date. Emergency.

Summary

SB 2075 amends Oklahoma’s money transmission law to substantially increase the fee collected on certain money transmission, transmitter, and wire transmitter transactions. For transactions of $500 or less, the fee would rise from $5 to $25. For amounts above $500, the additional percentage fee would increase from 1% to 5% of the excess amount. The bill also updates statutory language and references to reflect the revised fee structure. The bill keeps the existing framework for collecting and remitting the fee through the Oklahoma Tax Commission on a quarterly basis, with revenues still directed to the Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Revolving Fund. It also preserves the notice requirement informing customers that they may claim an 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. Enforcement provisions remain in place, including authority to suspend licenses for noncompliance, deny reapplication until obligations are met, and allow the State Banking Commissioner to pursue surety bond claims. In practical terms, the bill would increase the cost of money transmission services for customers and raise the compliance and remittance obligations for licensed transmitters and their delegates. It would also reinforce the role of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the State Banking Commissioner, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control in administering and enforcing the fee program. The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2026, but also contains an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness upon passage and approval. The available legislative context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a revenue-raising and enforcement-oriented measure tied to anti-money-laundering efforts, rather than a broadly controversial policy change in the available record. Any likely concern would center on the sharp increase in fees for consumers and the burden on money transmission businesses, while supporters would likely emphasize funding for enforcement and related state programs.

Impact

The bill would amend 63 O.S. 2021, Section 2-503.1j, increasing the fee imposed on money transmission transactions and raising the percentage applied to amounts over $500. It would preserve the existing quarterly remittance process to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, continue directing revenues to the Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Revolving Fund, and maintain enforcement tools such as license suspension, surety bond claims, and assistance from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control. The bill would affect licensed money transmitters, wire transmitters, their delegates, customers using those services, and the state agencies responsible for collection and enforcement.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no direct record of legislative debate or formal support/opposition. The bill’s text suggests a policy goal focused on strengthening enforcement and increasing revenue associated with money transmission oversight. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge, but the measure appears administrative and enforcement-driven rather than ideologically contentious in the available materials.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns the size of the fee increase: the bill raises the flat fee on smaller transactions from $5 to $25 and the marginal fee above $500 from 1% to 5%, which could be viewed as a significant cost increase for consumers and a heavier compliance burden for transmitters. Another possible issue is the expanded practical impact on businesses that serve remittance customers, especially those sending money domestically or internationally. On the other hand, supporters would likely argue that the higher fees better fund anti-money-laundering enforcement and related state oversight. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the available record.