Providing for financial institutions; imposing duties on the Department of Aging and the Department of Banking and Securities; and imposing penalties.
SB 738 amends Pennsylvania’s Older Adults Protective Services Act by adding a new chapter focused on financial institutions and the prevention of financial exploitation of older adults. The bill creates definitions for covered institutions, employees, designated representatives, transactions, and related terms, and establishes a reporting and response framework when bank or credit union staff have reason to believe an older adult may be a victim of exploitation or attempted exploitation.
Under the bill, a financial institution employee must report suspected exploitation to a designated representative within two business days, and the designated representative must review the report within five business days. If reasonable cause remains, the institution must report the matter to the appropriate area agency on aging or the Department of Aging, and may also share information with law enforcement. The bill also authorizes financial institutions to temporarily hold, refuse, or prevent certain transactions, including withdrawals, transfers, beneficiary changes, and power-of-attorney instructions, while an investigation is pending, subject to time limits and notice requirements. It further allows limited disclosure to authorized contacts and fiduciaries, requires record preservation and sharing for investigations, directs the Department of Aging to issue guidance and model training, mandates annual reporting on implementation, and establishes penalties for willful failures to report or intentional assistance in exploitation.
The bill would expand state law by adding a new regulatory and protective framework governing how Pennsylvania financial institutions respond to suspected elder financial abuse. It imposes new duties on banks, credit unions, and other covered institutions, while also giving them express authority and immunity to intervene in suspicious transactions, notify relevant parties, and cooperate with aging agencies and law enforcement. It also affects the Department of Aging and the Department of Banking and Securities by assigning them guidance, training, reporting, coordination, and penalty-related responsibilities. The measure would likely affect older adults, financial institutions, attorneys handling powers of attorney and estate planning, and agencies investigating abuse.
The bill appears generally supportive and protective in tone, with the structure indicating a broad consensus around strengthening safeguards for older adults against financial exploitation. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes limits direct evidence of debate, but the bill’s bipartisan-style sponsorship list and detailed immunity provisions suggest an effort to balance consumer protection with operational protections for financial institutions. Overall, the measure is framed as a preventive and collaborative response rather than a punitive one.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of mandatory reporting, the authority granted to financial institutions to freeze or block transactions, and the privacy/confidentiality implications of sharing account information with agencies and family or fiduciary contacts. Financial institutions may be concerned about compliance burdens, liability exposure, and the risk of wrongful holds, while older adults and advocates may focus on due process, autonomy, and the possibility of overblocking legitimate transactions. The bill addresses some of these concerns through good-faith immunity, short hold periods, notice requirements, and an exception for attorney-certified estate-planning transactions, but those same provisions may also be central to any debate over whether the bill is sufficiently protective or too restrictive.