What changed between these versions
A substantive restructuring of reporting requirements. V2 updates the short title to include the year 2026 and refines the definitions of eligible federal grant funds by adding specific statutory and regulatory citations. Most significantly, Section 5, which mandates a report on the state of scams, has been fundamentally rewritten to focus on FinCEN data, BSA reports, and the Rapid Response Program, while removing broad statistical estimates and multi-agency expenditure reporting.
Overview
There are a moderate number of changes, with significant modifications to definitions and a complete overhaul of one major reporting section. · V2 clarifies existing provisions, streamlines the identification of eligible grant funds, and fundamentally restructures the scope and focus of the report on the state of scams, narrowing its data collection methodology to FinCEN-specific information.
The most significant change in v2 is the complete rewrite of Section 5, which shifts the focus of the "Report on the State of Scams in the United States" from a broad, multi-agency statistical and enforcement overview to a FinCEN-centric analysis based on Bank Secrecy Act data and FinCEN's Rapid Response Program. Additionally, v2 updates the bill's short title to include the year 2026 and refines the definitions of eligible federal grant funds by replacing general program names with specific statutory and regulatory citations. Minor modifications were also made to the entities permitted to use grant funds and the recipients of congressional reports.
Deletions
This section required the report on the state of scams to estimate: the number of financial fraud, pig butchering, elder financial fraud, and scams committed each year (attempted and successful, by channel); the number of consumers losing money; the dollar amount of consumer losses; the percentage of scams attributed to overseas actors and organized crime; the number of attempted scams involving impersonation of phone numbers; and the estimated number of synthetic identities impersonating American consumers.
The deletion removes the mandate for the report to provide specific quantitative estimates on the prevalence, impact, and characteristics of various scams, including the role of overseas actors and synthetic identities. This significantly alters the scope of data that will be collected and presented to Congress regarding the overall landscape of scams.
This section required the report to provide an overview of Federal civil and criminal enforcement actions brought against recipients of fraud proceeds, including the number of actions, evaluation of effectiveness, types of claims/penalties/relief, and connection to Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).
The removal of this provision means the report will no longer include a comprehensive overview and evaluation of Federal enforcement efforts against financial fraud, pig butchering, elder financial fraud, and scams. This reduces the transparency regarding the government's prosecutorial and civil actions in these areas.
This section required the report to identify amounts made available and expended by nine specific Federal agencies (BCFP, DOJ, FBI, FCC, FRB, FTC, FinCEN, SEC, SSA) to address financial fraud, pig butchering, elder financial fraud, and scams.
The deletion eliminates the requirement for a multi-agency accounting of resources allocated and spent on combating these types of fraud. This reduces the ability of Congress and the public to assess the financial commitment and resource deployment across various Federal entities in addressing the problem.
This subsection required the Secretary of the Treasury to solicit comments from consumers, social media companies, email providers, telecommunications companies, financial institutions, and non-bank financial institutions when carrying out the report required under Section 5(a).
The removal of this provision eliminates a mechanism for public and industry input into the report on the state of scams. This could lead to a less comprehensive or less stakeholder-informed perspective in the final report.
Modifications
This is a minor, administrative change that updates the formal name of the Act, likely reflecting the year of its anticipated enactment. It has no substantive policy impact.
Before
The Act could be cited as the "Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act" or the "GUARD Act".
After
The Act can be cited as the "Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act of 2026" or the "GUARD Act of 2026".
This is a stylistic clarification that does not alter the substantive meaning or scope of the definition.
Before
Defined as "the illegal or improper use of an elderly or adult with a disability's money, property, or other resources for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain."
After
Defined as "the illegal or improper use of the money, property, or other resources of an elderly individual or adult with a disability for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain."
This modification provides greater legal precision and clarity regarding which federal grant funds are eligible under the Act, ensuring that the scope of funds is tied directly to existing legal frameworks. It does not appear to change the types of programs, but rather how they are referenced.
Before
Listed five Department of Justice programs by their common names.
After
Consolidated the five programs into four sub-paragraphs, replacing common names with specific statutory or regulatory citations (e.g., Title IV of the PRO-IP Act of 2008, 28 CFR part 23, Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968).
The restructuring improves readability. Changing "others" to "an individual" slightly narrows the scope to focus on deception against a single person, though the practical impact on enforcement may be minimal depending on interpretation.
Before
Defined as "the intentional misrepresentation of information or identity to deceive others, the unlawful use of a credit card, debit card, or automated teller machine or the use of electronic means to transmit deceptive information, in order to obtain money or other things of value."
After
Defined as "in order to obtain money or other things of value-- (A) intentional misrepresentation of information or identity to deceive an individual; (B) unlawful use of a credit card, debit card, or automated teller machine; or (C) use of electronic means to transmit deceptive information."
This expands the scope of entities permitted to use the specified federal grant funds for investigating financial fraud, potentially allowing a broader range of organizations beyond traditional law enforcement agencies to utilize these resources.
Before
Stated that "State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that receive eligible Federal grant funds may use such funds..."
After
Stated that "State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and grantees that receive eligible Federal grant funds may use such funds..."
This is a minor stylistic change with no operative impact.
Before
Referred to "State, local, Tribal and Federal law enforcement agencies".
After
Referred to "State, local, Tribal, and Federal law enforcement agencies".
This aligns the reporting requirement with the expanded scope of entities permitted to use the funds under Section 3(a), ensuring that "grantees" are also accountable for reporting on fund usage. "Submit to" is a minor stylistic change.
Before
Stated "Each law enforcement agency that makes use... shall... issue a report to the Federal agency..."
After
Stated "Each law enforcement agency and grantee that makes use... shall... submit to the Federal agency..."
This change centralizes the responsibility for this report more directly with FinCEN and mandates a more analytical and forward-looking report, requiring an assessment of current efforts and suggestions for legislative improvements.
Before
Required the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of FinCEN (in consultation with other agencies) to submit a report on "efforts and recommendations related to" the specified frauds.
After
Required the Secretary of the Treasury, "acting through the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network," and in consultation with other agencies, to submit a report on "efforts to combat general financial fraud... including an evaluation of, and any legislative recommendations to improve, the efficacy of the efforts."
This modification drastically alters the nature and scope of the report. It shifts the focus from a comprehensive, externally-sourced statistical and enforcement overview to an internal FinCEN analysis of financial crime trends, particularly those captured by BSA reports and involving digital assets. The recurring nature ensures ongoing reporting, but the removal of public input and multi-agency expenditure details narrows the report's breadth.
Before
Required a one-time report within 2 years, estimating scam statistics (volume, losses, actors), summarizing federal enforcement actions, and identifying agency expenditures. It also required public comment solicitation.
After
Required a report within 2 years, and two years thereafter (making it recurring), to be submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury acting through the Director of FinCEN. The report must rely on FinCEN-available information, analyze trends in suspected fraud as reflected in Bank Secrecy Act reports (including volume, dollar amounts, typologies, and digital assets), and summarize FinCEN's cooperation with law enforcement, including the Rapid Response Program, interdiction efforts, and limitations.
This expands the congressional oversight of how eligible federal grant funds are used for fraud investigation, involving committees with jurisdiction over law enforcement and judicial matters.
Before
Required annual reports to the Committee on Financial Services of the House and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
After
Required annual reports to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Scope
Fundamental restructuring — Changes are scattered throughout the bill, affecting the short title, definitions, grant usage provisions, and significantly restructuring a major reporting requirement. — Yes, v2 represents a meaningful change in policy direction for the "Report on the State of Scams" (Section 5), shifting from a broad, multi-faceted assessment to a more focused, FinCEN-centric analysis of financial crime data. Other changes are more about clarification and precision. — The changes to definitions (Section 2) clarify the scope of eligible grant funds, which directly impacts Section 3's provisions on grant usage. The restructuring of Section 5 significantly alters the information flow to Congress regarding scams, potentially influencing future legislative or enforcement strategies.
Impact analysis
State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and other grantees receiving eligible Federal grant funds
Positive, as it expands eligibility and provides clearer guidance on fund sources.
V2 explicitly includes "grantees" alongside law enforcement agencies as entities permitted to use the funds and required to report on their use. The definitions of eligible funds are also made more precise with statutory/regulatory citations.
Congress (specifically the House Financial Services, Senate Banking, and both Judiciary Committees)
Procedural, increasing oversight.
V2 expands the number of committees receiving the annual report on grant fund usage (Section 6) to include both House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Federal agencies (Treasury, FinCEN, AG, DHS, banking agencies, regulators) involved in reporting on scams
Procedural and directional shift. FinCEN's role is enhanced and specified, while other agencies' direct reporting burden for Section 5 is reduced. The nature of the information provided to Congress changes significantly.
V2 centralizes the responsibility for the "Report on the State of Scams" (Section 5) with FinCEN, acting through the Director, and significantly narrows the scope of data collection and analysis to FinCEN's internal data (BSA reports, Rapid Response Program). It also makes this report recurring every two years.
The public and industry stakeholders (consumers, social media companies, financial institutions, etc.)
Negative, as it reduces opportunities for public and industry engagement in shaping the report.
V2 removes the requirement for the Secretary of the Treasury to solicit public comments for the "Report on the State of Scams" (Section 5).