What This Bill Does
This bill would amend the Expedited Funds Availability Act so banks can make exceptions when a deposited item turns out to be a fraudulent check or a fraudulent wire transfer. The practical effect is to give financial institutions more room to hold, reverse, or review suspect deposits before funds are fully released to customers. It primarily affects bank customers, businesses that receive payments, and banks that process deposits and transfers. The goal is to reduce losses from fraud while preserving the basic system of quick access to deposited money.
- Amends the Expedited Funds Availability Act.
- Creates exceptions for fraudulent checks and wire transfers.
- Lets banks delay or review suspect deposits before releasing funds.
- Aims to reduce losses from payment and deposit fraud.
Who This Bill Affects
For most people, this bill would matter when they deposit a check or receive a wire transfer that later appears fraudulent. If a bank flags a suspicious item, your funds could be held longer or access could be delayed while the bank investigates, but that same delay could protect you from losing money to a fake payment. Businesses that rely on quick cash flow may feel the effect most, because the bill makes it easier for banks to slow or reverse access to questionable deposits.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Consumers who have been victims of check fraud They want banks to have more power to stop bad deposits before the money disappears. Supporters argue this can reduce the number of people who are left repaying losses after a scam.
- Banks and credit unions Financial institutions argue that faster access rules sometimes force them to release money before fraud is fully detected. They see this exception as a practical tool to manage risk and protect both customers and institutions.
- Small businesses receiving higher-risk payments Businesses that receive large or unusual transfers can be hit hard by fraudulent payments that later bounce or are reversed. Supporters say clearer fraud exceptions can reduce downstream losses and disputes.
- Consumers who depend on immediate access to deposits They may face longer holds on legitimate checks or wire receipts, especially when banks treat transactions as suspicious. Opponents argue that everyday customers should not bear the cost of broader fraud controls.
- Small firms with tight cash flow Delays in releasing deposited funds can disrupt payroll, rent, and supplier payments. Critics worry that more bank discretion could create uncertainty for businesses that already operate on thin margins.
- Payment service users and settlement recipients People expecting quick access to funds from legal settlements, invoices, or person-to-person transfers may experience delays if banks apply the exception broadly. They argue that fraud prevention should not become a blanket excuse for slower access.
Key Implications
-
““provide exceptions in the case of fraudulent checks or wire transfers””
This is the core change: banks would have a clearer legal basis to treat suspected fraud differently from ordinary deposits, which can delay availability or enable reversals.
-
““amend the Expedited Funds Availability Act””
The bill changes the federal rules that govern when deposited money must be made available, so it affects the timing of access to funds for customers nationwide.
-
““fraudulent checks or wire transfers””
The focus is on payment scams that can move quickly and be hard to recover once money is released, which is especially relevant for business payments and high-value transactions.
-
““for other purposes””
This standard legislative language suggests the bill may include related technical or conforming changes to bank-fraud procedures or deposit rules.
Latest Status
June 18, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.