HR-8338-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Sam Liccardo (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit financial institutions from transferring securities, digital assets, or investment accounts to state governments under unclaimed property ("escheatment") laws unless specific federal conditions are met. For accounts owned by living individuals, the institution would first need confirmed proof of the owner's death for at least 3 years, with no estate representative having expressed interest. For accounts owned by organizations, there must be no record of contact for at least 5 years. The bill would also require financial institutions to periodically check government death records for retirement-age account holders who have gone inactive, and would preempt any conflicting state escheatment laws.
Who benefits
Individual investors — particularly retirees and older Americans — whose brokerage, retirement, or digital asset accounts could otherwise be transferred to states under existing unclaimed property timelines. Heirs and estate beneficiaries who may be unaware of an account's existence and would have more time to claim assets. Cryptocurrency and digital asset holders, who are explicitly included and whose assets can be difficult to recover once transferred to a state. Financial institutions that would have clearer federal standards to follow in place of a patchwork of 50+ state laws. Estates of deceased individuals, which would have a guaranteed 3-year window to identify and claim assets.
Who is hurt
State governments, which rely on unclaimed property revenue — collectively billions of dollars annually — and would lose access to assets that currently escheat under shorter timelines. State general funds and the public programs they support could see reduced revenue. Individuals who are genuinely unreachable and whose assets would remain in limbo at financial institutions longer before being transferred to a state custodian that actively reunites owners with property. Financial institutions would bear new compliance costs, including mandatory death-record database checks every five years for retirement-age inactive accounts. Smaller financial institutions and credit unions may face disproportionate administrative burdens from the new verification requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that many states currently escheat investment accounts after just 3–5 years of inactivity — timelines that can easily be triggered by a long-term buy-and-hold investor who simply doesn't log in frequently. They contend that securities and digital assets are fundamentally different from dormant bank accounts because their value fluctuates, and liquidating them for transfer to a state can permanently destroy value for the rightful owner. They further argue that the bill's death-confirmation requirement closes a specific gap: accounts belonging to living people should never be seized, and requiring confirmed death before escheatment is a minimal, common-sense protection for retirement savings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that state unclaimed property programs exist precisely to protect consumers — states actively reunite owners with escheated assets and serve as a neutral custodian when financial institutions might otherwise profit from dormant accounts indefinitely. They contend that the bill's federal preemption of state escheatment law is a significant intrusion on a policy area states have managed for over a century, and that the death-confirmation requirement could leave genuinely abandoned assets locked at private institutions with no public accountability. They also argue that the 5-year no-contact rule for organizational accounts and the periodic death-check mandate impose real compliance costs on financial institutions that will ultimately be passed on to account holders.
Constitutional context
The bill's preemption of state unclaimed property laws implicates the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as Congress is regulating financial institutions engaged in interstate commerce. The Tenth Amendment is also relevant, as unclaimed property law has historically been a state function; courts would assess whether Congress has clearly authorized this displacement of state authority. Under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), any agency rules implementing this bill would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to set a federal floor on state escheatment timelines; states retain authority over unclaimed property programs that do not conflict with the federal conditions, and account owners retain the right to pursue remedies under both state and federal law.
Historical precedent
The Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, adopted in various versions by most states, has governed escheatment for decades, but no prior federal law has preempted state unclaimed property timelines for investment accounts specifically.