Georgia has enacted House Bill 945, a law that took effect on July 1, 2026, granting banks and credit unions the authority to temporarily halt suspicious financial transactions. This measure is specifically designed to protect adults aged 65 and older, as well as individuals with qualifying physical or mental incapacities, Alzheimer's disease, or dementia, from financial exploitation.
The law permits financial institutions to place a hold on transactions if they reasonably suspect financial exploitation is occurring. This authority can extend to an eligible adult's account, an account where the adult is a beneficiary, or even an account belonging to a suspected perpetrator, providing a broader scope to intercept illicit funds.
However, the law grants financial institutions discretion, meaning they are not mandated to pause every suspicious transaction. The decision to place a hold relies on a bank's ability to identify warning signs and act upon them. The law focuses on specific suspicious transactions rather than broadly shutting down all account activity.
A hold placed under this law can last for an initial 15 business days, with a possible extension of up to 15 more business days if the review continues to support the concern of exploitation. A court may also alter this period. Financial institutions are required to notify authorized account parties and any designated trusted contact within three business days, unless they reasonably suspect the notified party is involved in the exploitation. The institution must also initiate a review of the facts supporting its decision.
Before exercising this power, institutions must train relevant employees and establish written procedures for reviewing suspected exploitation. The law provides liability protection for institutions acting in good faith and with reasonable care.
Georgia's law also introduces the concept of a 'trusted contact,' whom an eligible adult can designate. This person, such as a relative or friend, can be contacted by the bank if exploitation is suspected. The bank may seek assistance in confirming contact information, health status, or power of attorney details. In some instances, the bank may only share that exploitation is suspected, as a trusted contact does not gain automatic access to account balances or decision-making authority.
Georgia is among at least 33 states that have enacted laws allowing financial institutions to delay certain transactions when financial exploitation is suspected. This trend reflects a growing effort to combat scams that often pressure victims into irreversible transfers. These laws aim to create a crucial window for review, counteracting the speed at which scammers operate.
While these laws provide a vital safeguard, their effectiveness can vary. The Senior Safe Act encourages reporting and offers liability protection but does not establish a universal transaction-hold rule for all account types. Brokerage firms operate under different regulations, such as FINRA Rule 2165, which allows for transaction holds on investment accounts. For checking and savings accounts, the protection often depends on individual state laws.
Experts advise individuals to proactively protect themselves. This includes inquiring about trusted contacts and transaction-hold policies with their bank, enabling instant transaction alerts, establishing family emergency code words, never transferring money to a purported "safe account," using robust security software, reducing publicly available personal information, and acting swiftly if suspicious activity is detected. The goal is to create layers of defense against increasingly sophisticated scam tactics, including those utilizing AI-generated voices and cloned information. Information from data brokers and people-search websites can be exploited by scammers to lend credibility to their fraudulent schemes. Taking steps to remove personal information from such sources can hinder their efforts. Regular cybersecurity practices, such as employing strong antivirus software and keeping it updated, are also essential in blocking the digital tools criminals use.
An early survey by the ABA Foundation indicated that about half of banks in states with transaction-hold laws had used this authority. This suggests that the industry finds value in the time these laws provide for investigation. The balance between preventing exploitation and avoiding the disruption of legitimate transactions remains a key consideration. Georgia's approach, with its reasonable-cause standard, notice requirements, and internal review processes, seeks to address this balance. The ultimate success of such laws will depend on their consistent and effective implementation by financial institutions.