Finance
This new bill hopes to ‘put the brakes’ on financial fraud targeting older Americans
A new bipartisan bill making its way through Congress aims to protect seniors and other vulnerable people from scams by allowing some financial institutions the ability to pause transaction requests while they investigate potential fraud.
The Financial Exploitation Prevention Act would give open-end investment companies, including mutual funds, the ability to pause redemption requests from people 65 and older or people with disabilities when the institution believes financial fraud or exploitation is at play.
“Financial exploitation is a huge problem in this country,” said Nina Kohn, an elder law expert at the Syracuse University College of Law. Artificial intelligence is also helping fraudsters become more sophisticated and making it harder for people to avoid scams, she added.
Financial abuse cost older victims nearly $2.4 billion in 2024, according to incidents reported to the Federal Trade Commission. The agency noted in its annual report that the estimate of total losses include “only a fraction” of older adults harmed by fraud due to underreporting.
Three people accused of being behind a major romance fraud scheme targeting older adults were indicted by the Department of Justice in May, part of a series of cases that have charged 11 others from the U.S. and Ghana with wire fraud and money laundering.
“The concern is, in part, that individuals may lose their life savings,” Kohn said.
“So financial institutions and entities that are holding individuals’ money can be empowered to help put the brakes on scams by delaying disbursement to a suspected victim,” she added.
READ MORE: As losses from scams surge, Congress asks telecoms to do more to prevent them
The bill passed the House in a 414-2 vote last month, while a similar bill resides in the Senate, though it’s not clear if or when the banking committee under that chamber will consider the legislation.
The overwhelming support for this bill shows “there’s broad agreement that protecting seniors from financial exploitation shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., one of the bill’s co-sponsors, in an emailed statement to PBS News.
The legislation gives these financial institutions additional tools to “recognize when something isn’t right and help stop financial abuse before the damage is done.”
Here’s what to know about the bill.
What would the bill do?
The bill would allow a financial institution that manages investments, such as mutual funds and some exchange-traded funds, to temporarily halt requests to access funds that it “reasonably believes” might be exploitative.
The bill focuses on requests from two specific groups:
- Someone age 65 or older
- Any adult the financial institution “reasonably believes has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect” their own interests.
It doesn’t require the institutions to carry out the pauses or investigate potential fraud. But there is a proposed framework for delays. The institution can put a hold on the request for up to 15 business days while companies notify a client-provided adult contact that the customer may be the victim of financial exploitation. There are steps an institution can take to extend the hold for another 10 days. A court, state regulator or another administrative authority could also extend the delay.
The bill does not apply to other financial institutions, like banks or credit unions. It does require the Securities and Exchange Commission to submit a report to Congress with recommendations on how to further reduce financial fraud targeting these adults within a year of enacting these measures.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, already allows brokers and money managers to temporarily freeze requests that are from older adults who may be the victims of exploitation.About half the states also have laws on the books that allow banks and sometimes credit unions to do the same.
This federal legislation “fills a gap,” Kohn said, by covering investment funds that are self-managed.
How this bill could help
The Department of Justice identified more than 1 million victims of all forms of elder financial exploitation, fraud, neglect and abuse between July 2024 and June 2025. Offenders allegedly stole or attempted to steal $2.3 billion, according to the department’s latest annual report to Congress.
There are no national reporting standards for how often financial institutions detect exploitation, and when they do, how often they put holds on accounts, said Marti DeLiema, associate professor at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work.
WATCH: How human trafficking victims are forced to run ‘pig butchering’ investment scams
But some state-level data does exist. In Minnesota, of the 286 cases referred for investigation in 2022, temporary holds were implemented in a quarter of them, according to a study DeLiema co-authored.
Half of the banks who responded to a 2024 survey from the American Bankers Association Foundation said they had delayed disbursements or refused or held transactions when they suspected exploitation.
And more than 85% of banks in states without hold laws said they would find them beneficial, the survey found.
“Financial institutions are seeing this stuff is happening. They want to help,” DeLiema said. Sometimes, a conversation from the bank or law enforcement is enough to pull the victim from the scam, she said.
Other times, that’s not enough.
In those cases, temporary holds can be used as a “last resort” to keep the person and their money safe.
Concerns and questions about autonomy
For Kohn, it’s not clear whether the pauses proposed by the bill will prevent the exploitation entirely or just delay it. Putting holds on customers’ accounts also puts financial institutions at risk of degrading trust with their clients.
While 43% of banks in the ABA Foundation survey said they found state hold laws useful in preventing financial exploitation among older people, 45% also said customers reacted negatively to those holds. Nearly 17% said customers closed their accounts after a delay, and 2.4% said the hold has been challenged in court.
Another concern is someone’s self-determination. Allowing financial institutions to stop customers from accessing their own money may verge into limiting people’s ability to make choices about their lives and their own funds, Kohn said.
“The question is: Is that restriction on self-determination justified?” she said.
Giving people the opportunity to make their own decisions, even bad ones, is called “dignity of risk,” a term often used in disability studies.
For example, people are allowed to take their retirement funds and spend it at a casino, DeLiema said, so “why would we stop them from participating in a scam?”
“The answer has to be: The people on the other end are criminally victimizing these individuals. They’re using deception, they’re lying,” she said.
That exploitation leads victims to believe they’re in a relationship with their scammer, or that they’re rescuing a grandchild, or that their money is being invested in cryptocurrencies, she said.
With the rise of deepfakes and other AI-driven technology being used in scams, “all this is going to get a lot worse,” she added.
WATCH: How to recognize and block AI-powered scam attempts
It’s reasonable for policymakers to be concerned about exploitation among older adults in particular, because they tend to lose more money than younger adults and have less time to recover financially, Kohn said.
But she also worries that legislation based on age may perpetuate stereotypes against older people.
If financial holds are good policy, why limit their application, she said.
“I think that speaks to our willingness as a society to curtail the self-determination and financial independence of older adults and people with disabilities to a degree that we are not comfortable curtailing the self-determination and financial independence of other adults,” she said.
A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.
Finance
Healthcare CFOs face growing decision-making expectations. Many say they aren't ready
Finance
Sharon Meieran’s Plan for Multnomah County Raises Campaign Finance Questions
Former Multnomah County Commissioner Sharon Meieran left the government in 2024 frustrated by what she describes as widespread dysfunction. So she set to work on a highly detailed plan to restructure the county, one she hoped would be of great value to the next county chair.
But since Meieran entered the chair’s race June 9, she has argued that the plan actually has no value at all—at least not any that she needs to disclose in campaign finance records.
In fact, campaign filings show that a political action committee Meieran created last October spent $70,000 writing and publicizing the plan, using contributions largely from business owners and property developers frustrated with the county’s performance. That committee, Fixing Multnomah County, and a corresponding website centered on the plan feature photos of Meieran and links to her campaign website.
But Meieran has opted not to declare the plan as an in-kind contribution to her campaign, even as some argue that local and state campaign finance rules suggest she should. (Like other candidates, Meieran has a separate committee, Friends of Sharon Meieran, to finance her campaign.)
In an email, Meieran told WW she doesn’t need to report the plan as a campaign expense because it is available to any candidate—including her opponents, Multnomah County Commissioners Julia Brim-Edwards and Shannon Singleton.
“All information I gathered was (and is) publicly available,” Meieran wrote. “Anyone could have adopted (and still could use) the plan, including current board members, the current chair, and the current candidates. I did not write the plan to run for chair, but because it was obvious to me and others that the county needed a plan.”
Multnomah County places strict limits on campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions, which are contributions that have value but are not cash.
In the eyes of some observers, such as those backing Meieran’s opponents in the fierce three-way contest as well as neutral watchdogs, Meieran effectively sidestepped the county’s low ceiling on campaign contributions by taking tens of thousands of dollars from a handful of donors to craft a platform she’s now using in her bid for office. In other words, as a candidate, she is using something of value well in excess of contribution limits—and failing to report it.
The Oregon Campaign Finance Manual defines an in-kind contribution by its fair market value, or the dollar amount a consumer would expect to pay for the good or service.
Seth Woolley, a campaign finance watchdog, says because the plan written for Fixing Multnomah County was funded by a third-party political committee and with money from several donors, “contributing the report back to her own campaign is fully subject to limits and would be ‘fair market valued’ based on the amount the committee paid to generate the report.”
“The report is a thing of value created by a political committee. It meets the definition of a contribution as another thing of value that is categorized as an in-kind contribution,” Woolley adds. “So she’s in effective noncompliance as she has not reported it yet on both accounts and furthermore claims it is nonreportable.”
Elected to her first term as commissioner in 2016 and her second in 2020, Meieran, an emergency room physician who also has a law degree, ran against Jessica Vega Pederson for Multnomah County chair in 2022 (WW endorsed Meieran in that race). After losing, she completed a fiery second term as commissioner, sparring with Vega Pederson at nearly every opportunity. As a thorn in Vega Pederson’s side, Meieran won many fans.
“When I left the county, many people expressed sadness that I was leaving, [and] described me as the only ‘voice of reason’ on the board,” she says.
In October 2025, Meieran founded a miscellaneous political action committee called Fixing Multnomah County. That committee raised $70,116 and built a 23-page “Comprehensive Multnomah County Turnaround Plan” that Meieran now says she will enact if elected.
The plan advises how to make the county more efficient and improve transparency. It ties dollars to outcomes, asking that instead of setting budgets for programs that continue year after year, county departments should outline the results they expect funding to deliver—and be held responsible for achieving those results. The plan also looks to streamline the county’s 11 departments into five hubs to eliminate duplication of services and better track how money flows through the county. (The plan zeroes in on homeless services as its case study in how these budgeting principles would play out).
Meieran says developing the plan was not a stepping stone to her bid for county chair. She decided to enter the chair’s race, she says, to force the county to engage with a plan, any plan.
“I did not originally want to run for chair,” she says. “The only reason I am running is because no other candidate has proposed even an outline of a plan…Had any of the other candidates made constructive positive or negative comments about the plan, or shared one of their own, I would have happily considered that success my final contribution to the county.”
The debate now boils down to whether Meieran should have reported the $70,000 spent to develop the plan, now core to her platform, as a campaign expense, and whether that money should be allowed in the race as an in-kind contribution.
Contributions to county candidates are limited to $603 per donor this election cycle thanks to a charter amendment voters approved in 2016.
Yet Fixing Multnomah County acquired much of its bankroll from donations that far exceeded $603.
Those contributions included $10,000 from developer Homer Williams, $10,000 from former City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, $5,000 from affordable housing developer Rob Justus, $5,000 from former Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission chairman Paul Rosenbaum, and $2,500 from downtown property owner Greg Goodman.
Laurie Wimmer, executive secretary-treasurer of the Northwest Oregon Labor Council, says Fixing Multnomah County’s collection of “way larger than allowed” contributions allows Meieran to skirt campaign finance laws. Wimmer’s group has endorsed Brim-Edwards for chair. (Meieran is not seeking organizations’ endorsements.)
“Even if this doesn’t strictly violate the letter of the law, it surely violates its spirit,” Wimmer says. “As long as we, as a community, have decided that limits are good public policy, then everyone should follow them with fidelity and not game the system for some kind of advantage.”
Jessica Morkert-Shibley, a spokeswoman for Multnomah County, says a political committee’s contributions to any candidate are subject to the $603 limit. The definition of the limit is broad enough to extend to in-kind contributions, Morkert-Shibley says, but she declined to comment on Meieran’s campaign bookkeeping.
“The county would not comment on a particular candidate or campaign outside the context of a formal complaint or investigation without an opportunity to gather all the information,” she says. “We wouldn’t want to prejudge a matter before it’s been reviewed. And at this time we do not have enough additional information to initiate an investigation without a formal complaint.”
Meieran, for her part, says that if someone had a substantive issue with her two committees, she would have been made aware of a complaint. None has been filed with the county, Morkert-Shibley says. And Meieran says she’s acting within the law, having sought legal advice from C&E Systems, which provides management services.
When asked if she believed the plan Fixing Multnomah County developed provided value to her campaign, Meieran said it was “immaterial from a disclosure perspective.”
And Meieran took issue with WW’s suggestion that not reporting the plan as a campaign expense violated campaign finance laws’ spirit of transparency.
“The question should not be: How the hell does Sharon Meieran have a plan to talk about in her campaign?” she says. “It should be: Why is she the only one who cared enough to spend a year figuring out what needs to happen after an election before even deciding to be a candidate?”
Finance
Bangor’s finance department in flux after top officials abruptly quit
BANGOR, Maine (WVII) — Bangor officials are looking for outside help after both the city’s finance director and assistant finance director resigned.
For now, the city manager and assistant city manager are overseeing the Finance Department and reallocating staff to help until new hires are made.
This isn’t the first shakeup in the department. The city’s previous finance director also suddenly left in 2024.
However, officials say Bangor is moving in a positive direction.
“We are moving in a direction where we’re going to overhaul the department. The ideas were to try to work with Maine Municipal Association or work within the city’s own departments, particularly, as you mentioned, the airport, which, those are both viable options. I’m comfortable to say that we are better than where we were previously in 2024,” City Councilor Joseph Leonard said.
The city manager has tapped the Bangor International Airport financial manager to serve as the city’s interim finance director.
-
Vermont5 minutes agoVermont sunrise, sunset times under permanent daylight saving time
-
Virginia11 minutes agoVa. resident seeks answers from state education superintendent over genocide definition
-
Washington17 minutes agoWatch Scott Speed Set Mount Washington Record In Subaru WRX Project Midnight
-
Wisconsin23 minutes agoTrump administration live updates: Voters deal out upsets in Wisconsin and Minnesota governor primaries
-
West Virginia29 minutes agoMetroNews This Morning 8-12-26 – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming35 minutes agoHooray! Ranch Hand Rescues Squealing Elk Calf Entangled In Barbed Wire
-
Crypto41 minutes agoBitcoin Stalls at $63,400 as ETFs Outpace Network Issuance
-
Finance47 minutes agoHealthcare CFOs face growing decision-making expectations. Many say they aren't ready