Oklahoma Senate Bill SB791

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Banks and trusts companies; prohibiting certain institutions from providing certain information to certain agents; establishing penalties. Effective date. Emergency.

Summary

SB 791 would create a new section of Oklahoma law governing how banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions respond to requests for account and transaction information. The bill would prohibit those institutions from providing details about an individual’s, business’s, or trust’s financial accounts or transactions to a federal agent or agency that requests the information. It also requires the institution to notify the account owner or manager within two business days of any request, and the notice must identify the date and time of the request, the requestor, and other pertinent information. The bill includes penalties for noncompliance. A financial institution that provides the information in violation of the bill would face a $10,000 fine for a first offense, and a second offense could result in loss of the institution’s license to operate in Oklahoma. The bill states that it would not apply when the request is supported by a warrant, court order, or clearly articulated written probable cause. It also contains an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.

Impact

If enacted, SB 791 would add a new restriction to Title 6 of the Oklahoma Statutes limiting when financial institutions may disclose customer financial information to federal authorities. It would impose a mandatory customer-notification requirement and create state penalties for institutions that comply with covered federal requests without the specified legal process. The bill would affect banks, credit unions, other financial institutions, and account holders whose financial records are sought by federal agents or agencies.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s introduction and coauthoring suggest active sponsorship, but the overall sentiment from the record is limited to the bill’s protective framing around financial privacy and notice to account holders. Because no votes or hearing remarks are available, support or opposition cannot be reliably characterized beyond the text itself.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on cooperation with federal investigations and its requirement that institutions notify customers quickly after a request. Supporters would likely view the measure as a financial privacy and state autonomy safeguard, while opponents could argue it interferes with lawful federal inquiries or creates compliance risks for institutions. The exception for warrants, court orders, and written probable cause narrows the dispute somewhat, but the broad ban on voluntary disclosure to federal agents and the severe penalties for violations are the bill’s most controversial features.