House debates financial exploitation protections for vulnerable adults

by Jasmine Hall

Reps. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, and Lane Allred, R-Afton, talk before the morning session Jan. 25 in the House chamber. On Thursday, legislation passed an initial vote that would protect Wyoming’s vulnerable adults from financial exploitation.

Michael Smith/For the Wyoming Tribune Eagle

CHEYENNE — Legislation that would protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation passed an initial vote in the House on Thursday but still divided the chamber in the Committee of the Whole.

State representatives in opposition to Senate File 24 questioned the mechanics of the bill — from how and why the Wyoming Department of Family Services would investigate exploitation to whether banks would be guaranteed immunity if they were involved in fraud.

“My understanding is that we’re depending on the institution, financial institutions, to make these decisions as to whether something needs to be looked into or not,” asked Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette. “Are they qualified to make that decision and then escalate it to where we have the state department get involved?”

Inquiries such as these led to nearly an hour of debate and explanation, despite the bill being sponsored by the Joint Judiciary Committee and lawmakers saying it was backed by extensive work done in the interim session.

Rep. Ember Oakley, R-Riverton, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, presented the bill and pushed for its approval. She told representatives SF 24 sets up rules and a procedure to allow banks to put a five-day temporary hold on potentially fraudulent transactions, under which they can investigate and report the incident to Adult Protection Services if necessary.

Adult Protection Services is an agency under DFS that provides services for vulnerable adults or elders who are eligible, such as social case work, home care, physical evaluations, emergency shelter and assistance obtaining guardianship. They would receive the report and could further look into it or involve law enforcement when warranted.

Financial institutions are still responsible for protecting the confidentiality of personal financial records, which is why there is an immunity clause included in the bill.

In order to notify the Adult Protection Services of any concerns, the banks would be provided immunity from civil liability for sharing banking information to a third party. But the bill does add provisions in the immunity clause in case a qualified person or financial institution acted in bad faith or for a malicious purpose.

Oakley said this type of legislation has been considered and implemented in 34 other states, and both financial institutions and constituents have asked for the legislation to provide financial protection..

“The banks have no tools to do this. It is against the law for them to hold our account without this piece of legislation,” said Rep. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, another lawmaker who sits on the Joint Judiciary Committee. “And so they’re really coming to us saying, ‘Hey, this is something we can do for our folks back home to protect them, and especially those that can’t protect themselves.’”

Committee members heard testimony from those who have experienced financial loss and tragedies, including a woman who signed over power of attorney to her daughter when she was going to have surgery. Her daughter took an extensive amount of unauthorized assets, and the resident said she would have been protected by a bill like SF 24 because all of her and her husband’s transactions are routine.

The Riverton lawmaker added federal reports revealed Wyomingites were the victims of fraud “to the tune of about $7.8 million in 2021.”

House Speaker Albert Sommers, R-Pinedale, shared his own findings that brought up emotions. He spoke in favor of the bill, despite being a past opponent, and said the director of a program that addresses sexual assault and violence told him about an adult who was living in dog feces while the people in the house were spending the victim’s money on drugs.

“You’re going to say we can’t go down a path of trying something,” Sommers pushed near the end of the debate. “What we do is try things. If we screw up, we’ll fix it. That’s what we do.”

It was also mentioned that while agencies and law enforcement can be notified after a case of exploitation or fraud, there is still nothing that can be done to get the money back. This is why representatives argued prevention was the best tactic, because banks can “stop the tragedy before it takes place.”

The monitoring would also not be random or directed at all adults deemed “vulnerable” by the financial institutions.

The bill has strict definitions of vulnerable adults under Wyoming statute, meaning “any person 18 years of age or older who is unable to manage and take care of himself or his money, assets or property without assistance as a result of advanced age or physical or mental disability.”

There is also clarity on what financial exploitation means in the bill, spanning from “wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, appropriation or use of the money” to obtaining control of funds “through deception, intimidation, fraud, or undue influence.” And when the financial institution suspects an action such as this on a vulnerable adult’s assets, property or account, it is only the transaction and not the account, that is held.

“That’s a valuable trade-off that protects the vulnerable people who are literally losing everything,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Art Washut, R-Casper.

Full Article & Source:
House debates financial exploitation protections for vulnerable adults