Tennessee § 45-2-1203 - Refusal or delay of financial transaction due to suspicion of financial exploitation.

§ 45-2-1203. Refusal or delay of financial transaction due to suspicion of financial exploitation.

If a financial service provider has reasonable cause to suspect that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted, the financial service provider may, but is not required to, refuse a financial transaction or delay a financial transaction on an account: Of the elderly or vulnerable adult; On which the elderly or vulnerable adult is a beneficiary, including a trust, guardianship, or conservatorship account; or Of a person suspected of perpetrating financial exploitation. A financial service provider may also refuse a financial transaction or delay a financial transaction under this section if the department of human services or a law enforcement agency provides information to the financial service provider demonstrating that it is reasonable to believe that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted. Except as ordered by a court, a financial service provider is not required to refuse a financial transaction or delay a financial transaction when provided with information by the department of human services or a law enforcement agency alleging that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted, but may use its discretion to determine whether to refuse a financial transaction or hold a financial transaction based on the information available to the financial service provider. A financial service provider that refuses a financial transaction or holds a financial transaction based on reasonable cause to suspect that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted shall: Except with regard to an account administered by a bank or trust company in a fiduciary capacity, make a reasonable effort to notify one (1) or more parties authorized to transact business on the account orally or in writing; and Report the incident, if it involves financial exploitation, to the department of human services adult protective services division, as provided in § 71-6-103. No notice under this section shall be required to be provided to any party authorized to conduct business on the account if the party is the suspected perpetrator of financial exploitation. Any refusal by a financial service provider to conduct a financial transaction or hold a financial transaction as authorized by this section based on the financial service provider's reasonable cause to suspect that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted expires upon the earlier of: Ten (10) business days after the date on which the financial service provider first refused or held the financial transaction unless earlier terminated by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, if the transaction involved the sale of a security or offer to sell a security and the person selling or offering to sell is not required to register pursuant to title 48, chapter 1, part 1; Five (5) business days after the date on which the financial service provider first refused a financial transaction or held the financial transaction, if the transaction did not involve the sale of a security or offer to sell a security, unless earlier terminated by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; The time when the financial service provider reasonably believes that the financial transaction will not result in financial exploitation; or The time when the customer requesting the transaction has been advised of a potential risk in the transaction and the customer has requested the transaction to continue as long as the customer is not the suspected perpetrator of financial exploitation. A financial service provider may extend the time permitted in this section to refuse a financial transaction or hold a financial transaction based on a reasonable belief that additional time is needed to investigate the financial transaction or to prevent financial exploitation. Notwithstanding subsection (e), a court of competent jurisdiction may enter an order extending the time that a financial service provider must refuse a financial transaction or hold a financial transaction based on reasonable cause to suspect that financial exploitation may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted. A financial service provider, or an employee of a financial service provider, is immune from all criminal, civil, and administrative liability: For refusing or not refusing a financial transaction, or holding or not holding a financial transaction under this section; or For actions taken in furtherance of the determination made under subdivision (h)(1) if the determination was based upon a reasonable belief. Acts 2017, ch. 264, § 1. Compiler's Notes. Former §§ 45-2-1201 — 45-2-1203 (Acts 1953, ch. 47, §§ 1-3; Williams, §§ 4129.4 — 4129.6; Acts 1957, ch. 111, § 1; 1959, ch. 28, §§ 1-3; 1959, ch. 310, §§ 1, 2; Acts 1968, ch. 523, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.) §§ 45-1201 — 45-1203; Acts 1982, ch. 860, § 1; 1983, ch. 189, § 6), concerning foreign institutions investing in loans, were repealed by Acts 1990, ch. 1087, § 1. Acts 2017, ch. 264, § 1 enacted a new part 22, §§ 45-2-2201 — 45-2-2206 , but the part has been redesignated as part 12, §§ 45-2-1201 — 45-2-1206 by authority of the Code Commission. Acts 2017, ch. 264, § 6 provided that the Department of Financial Institutions is encouraged, within existing public or private resources, to consult with financial service providers as defined in this act, the Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability, and the Department of Human Services to consider distributing public education and information to alert the public to the dangers posed to elderly and vulnerable adults by financial exploitation. Acts 2017, ch. 264, § 7 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall be repealed on June 30, 2022. However, Acts 2020, ch. 605, § 9 deleted the language of chapter 264 of the Public Acts of 2017, which provided for the repeal.