title: United States – South Carolina Payments Regulation Monitor | World Payments Monitor canonical: https://payments.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-south-carolina/ date_modified: 2026-10-21 publisher: Asymmetric Intelligence # United States – South Carolina US-SC schema world-payments-v1 trajectory: not yet assessed Last updated 2026-10-21 · 14 modules · 54 sourced findings · 130 sources in the cumulative register 14 Modules baseline.modules[] 54 Findings modules[].findings[] 46 Tier-1 sources run_metadata.t1_source_count Confidence mix (sums to 14 rendered modules; click to filter) No modules moved this cycle. ** United States federal law** that applies in United States – South Carolina is covered once, on the [United States](https://payments.gi/jurisdictions/united-states/) page. This page covers United States – South Carolina’s own layer: its own law, regulators and enforcement. ## Jurisdiction brief ###### Latest update · 11 October 2026 #### Lead Signal South Carolina enacted two distinct pieces of payments-relevant legislation this period. S.163 (South Carolina Act No. 208), effective 19 May 2026, adds Title 34 Chapter 47 to the state code, banning state agencies and political subdivisions from accepting, requiring, or testing payment in a central bank digital currency, including barring participation in any Federal Reserve CBDC pilot, while protecting the acceptance of privately-issued, legal-tender or treasury-backed stablecoins as payment, distinct from a federally-issued CBDC. Separately, the Guarantee Banking Act (H.5538, South Carolina Act No. 257), signed 30 June 2026 and effective 30 December 2026, adds its own Chapter 47 to Title 34 and prohibits discrimination in the provision of covered financial services — including depository accounts, money transmission (covering ACH, payment services, and credit-card networks), and credit — and prohibits false statements of reasons for adverse action. #### Other Developments **South Carolina narrowed money-transmitter licensing for crypto infrastructure.** S.163 exempts digital-asset mining, blockchain node operation, blockchain software development, and non-fiat crypto-to-crypto exchange from the state money-transmitter licence requirement under Title 35 Chapter 11, while retaining Attorney General fraud-enforcement authority over persons falsely claiming to offer mining-as-a-service or staking-as-a-service. **The Guarantee Banking Act reaches a broad set of covered financial services.** As enacted, Act No. 257 covers depository accounts, money transmission expressly including ACH, payment services, and credit-card networks, and credit, and becomes applicable from 30 December 2026, confirmed by the official South Carolina Legislature List of Acts. **Two remittance-related bills remain pending, unenacted, in committee.** H.4251 would add a new Section 35-11-240 requiring money-transmission licensees to collect a fee of seven dollars fifty cents on transfers up to five hundred dollars, plus one and a half percent above that threshold, with proceeds directed to the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund; it has remained in House committee since 27 March 2025 with no further action identified. H.5272 would require a financial institution to verify United States citizenship before wiring or remitting funds to a foreign country, and would either prohibit the transfer or impose a one-thousand-dollar fee on a non-citizen remitter; it likewise remains pending. #### Cross-Monitor Connections The crypto-infrastructure licensing carve-out in S.163 and the preserved Attorney General fraud-enforcement backstop over mining-as-a-service and staking-as-a-service solicitation are matters this monitor notes as a change to the payments-licensing perimeter; the illicit-finance use of any instrument within that perimeter is a financial-integrity question, not a conclusion this monitor draws. #### Outlook The Guarantee Banking Acts anti-discrimination and adverse-action-disclosure duties become applicable from 30 December 2026, and covered financial-services providers operating in South Carolina should expect that date to be the operative compliance horizon for this instrument. The stablecoin-acceptance protections and CBDC-acceptance ban under S.163 are already in force as of 19 May 2026. The two pending remittance bills, H.4251 and H.5272, have shown no further legislative movement since their last recorded committee action and remain unenacted as scheduled; whether either advances in a future session is not yet determinable from the current legislative record. _3 earlier updates not shown here._ ###### Standing brief · as of 5 July 2026 _Written before the update above. Where they differ, the update is the more recent position._ #### Lead Signal South Carolina has moved decisively on digital-asset policy in 2026, establishing a comprehensive legislative baseline that positions the state as an increasingly crypto-friendly jurisdiction. S.163 bars state governing authorities from accepting or requiring CBDC payments or participating in federal CBDC pilots, protects self-custody rights, and excludes privately issued asset-backed stablecoins from the CBDC definition. The law was ratified May 14, 2026 and signed by Governor McMaster. A Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act, Bill 4256, would let the state Treasurer invest unencumbered state funds in digital assets including Bitcoin, capped at 1 million BTC and 3% of the state's digital-asset investment portfolio, subject to independent annual custody audits; it remains in the Ways and Means committee. A separate bill, 4592, would require virtual-currency-kiosk operators to hold a money transmitter licence and provide on-screen fraud disclosures; it has not yet been enacted. At the federal level, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by South Carolina's Senator Tim Scott, voted 15-9 on May 14, 2026 to advance the CLARITY Act. The bill missed its July 4, 2026 Senate floor target amid unresolved disputes over stablecoin yield and conflict-of-interest provisions. Absent a state-specific stablecoin-issuer regime, South Carolina-domiciled issuers and banks operate under the federal GENIUS Act framework, signed into law July 18, 2025. This digital-asset legislative program constitutes the most material payments-policy development of the baseline window, positioning South Carolina as an increasingly crypto-friendly jurisdiction absent a state-level stablecoin-issuer authorisation regime. #### Other Developments South Carolina's money-transmission licensing perimeter is modernizing alongside its digital-asset posture. Money transmitters and currency-exchange institutions are licensed and regulated under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act, administered by the Attorney General's Money Services Division rather than a banking regulator. The state's 2024 Act No. 218 substantially adopted the multistate Money Transmission Modernization Act model law, raising licence fees to $1,600 and updating net worth, surety bond, permissible investment and control-definition provisions. Safeguarding of customer funds still rests on a surety-bond and net-worth model rather than a segregation-of-funds trust structure: a bond of $50,000 plus $10,000 per additional office, capped at $250,000, and a net-worth floor of $250,000. South Carolina does not separately mandate a customer-fund segregation or trust model. Separately, S.163 carves out crypto mining, node operation and crypto-to-crypto trading from money-transmitter licensing scope. Structural pressure is building in the banking market. 78% of all South Carolina bank deposits were held in out-of-state banks in 2023, alongside a net decrease of 233 bank branches statewide against a net increase of 24 credit union branches over the same period. State law bars local governments from depositing taxpayer funds in credit unions, confining public deposits to traditional banks. A coalition of credit unions and local governments, the Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition, is pushing to change that law, opposed by the SC Bankers Association. This dynamic is compounded by continued out-of-state consolidation: Huntington Bancshares closed its acquisition of Dallas-based Veritex on October 19, 2025 and is targeting market-share expansion into North Carolina and South Carolina with plans to build dozens of new branches. Carter Bankshares, a Virginia-based bank, opened a loan production office in South Carolina in November 2025 and is considering acquiring a bank to widen its Carolinas footprint, especially in South Carolina. On enforcement, South Carolina's Attorney General joined a 47-state, $80 million multistate settlement with Block, Inc. over alleged BSA/AML program deficiencies tied to Cash App, with Block also agreeing to hire an independent compliance consultant. #### Cross-Monitor Connections The $80 million multistate Block, Inc. settlement carries illicit-finance program-deficiency significance that sits beyond this monitor's payments-regulation remit; original AML analysis of the settlement belongs to the Financial Integrity Monitor. Within scope here, all South Carolina money transmitters must be licensed under the South Carolina Anti-Money Laundering Act, with FinCEN MSB registration a precondition to state licensure, tying the state's AML posture directly to the federal Bank Secrecy Act registration regime. South Carolina's participation in the Block, Inc. settlement reinforces the bank-versus-non-bank supervision gap tracked across this monitor's licensing and AML modules. #### Outlook The CLARITY Act's revised Senate floor vote is expected in the third quarter of 2026 following its committee advance. In South Carolina, the Bitcoin-reserve bill remains in committee and has not yet been enacted. The pending virtual-currency-kiosk licensing bill likewise remains uncertain, and its disposition will determine whether the state's crypto-friendly posture extends into direct treasury exposure and kiosk-specific consumer protection. The structural tension between deposit concentration, branch contraction, and the statutory bar on credit-union public deposits is likely to keep generating political pressure that could reshape correspondent and settlement-access rules in South Carolina. trust tier: ai_unverified ###### Latest update · 11 October 2026 #### Regulatory Status South Carolina enacted two material payments-relevant statutes this period. S.163, South Carolina Act No. 208, effective 19 May 2026, bans state agencies and political subdivisions from accepting, requiring, or testing payment in a central bank digital currency, including barring participation in any Federal Reserve CBDC pilot, while protecting the acceptance of privately-issued, legal-tender or treasury-backed stablecoins as a distinct, permitted payment instrument. The same statute exempts digital-asset mining, blockchain node operation, blockchain software development, and non-fiat crypto-to-crypto exchange from the states money-transmitter licensing requirement under Title 35 Chapter 11, while preserving Attorney General fraud-enforcement authority over mining-as-a-service and staking-as-a-service solicitation. Separately, the Guarantee Banking Act, H.5538, South Carolina Act No. 257, signed 30 June 2026 and effective 30 December 2026, adds its own Chapter 47 to Title 34 and prohibits discrimination in covered financial services — depository accounts, money transmission including ACH, payment services and credit-card networks, and credit — and prohibits false statements of the reasons for an adverse action. Two further bills remain pending and unenacted in committee: H.4251, which would impose a fee on money-transmission remittances with proceeds to the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund, has seen no action since 27 March 2025; H.5272, which would require citizenship verification before a financial institution wires or remits funds abroad, remains pending as introduced. #### Outlook The Guarantee Banking Acts conduct obligations become applicable from 30 December 2026, marking the operative compliance horizon for covered financial-services providers in the state. The stablecoin-acceptance protections and CBDC-acceptance ban under S.163 are already in force. H.4251 and H.5272 remain pending as scheduled, with no further legislative movement identified since their last recorded committee action. _1 earlier update not shown here._ ###### Standing brief · as of 5 July 2026 _Written before the update above. Where they differ, the update is the more recent position._ #### Regulatory Status South Carolina has established a comprehensive baseline payments-regulation profile across all fourteen module areas in this cycle. Money transmission is licensed and regulated under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act, administered by the Attorney General's Money Services Division, with the 2024 Act No. 218 modernizing the regime along Money Transmission Modernization Act lines. Safeguarding rests on a surety-bond and net-worth model rather than fund segregation. South Carolina enacted S.163, a comprehensive digital-asset law barring state CBDC acceptance and protecting self-custody rights, positioning the state as increasingly crypto-friendly; a Bitcoin-reserve bill and a virtual-currency-kiosk licensing bill remain pending in committee. No dedicated payments operational-resilience statute exists; the general breach-notification law applies instead. No state-specific card-interchange or surcharge statute exists, and no dedicated remittance-corridor policy exists beyond the general money-transmitter framework. The state's banking market shows heavy out-of-state deposit concentration and branch contraction, generating political pressure over the credit-union public-deposit restriction. South Carolina's Attorney General joined the $80 million multistate Block, Inc. BSA/AML settlement, and the state's AML posture continues to tie money-transmitter licensure to FinCEN MSB registration. No merchant-cash-advance licensing regime exists. South Carolina community banks are adopting FedNow instant payments. An elder financial exploitation law protects vulnerable adults, though no APP-fraud reimbursement mandate exists. Correspondent-access strain is emerging from deposit concentration and rural branch closures. Continued out-of-state bank M&A activity, including Huntington Bancshares' expansion following its Veritex acquisition and Carter Bankshares' scouting, signals ongoing consolidation pressure. #### Outlook South Carolina's regulatory trajectory is diverging toward liberalisation on digital assets while structural banking-market pressures build toward a potential contest over correspondent and public-deposit access rules; the CLARITY Act's federal trajectory and the state's pending crypto bills are the key near-term markers to watch. 14 of 14 modules Signal Density Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search. ### W1a Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access Confirmed confirmed 2026-07-05 South Carolina uses the general state money-transmitter licence. S.163 (signed May 19, 2026) exempts crypto mining, node operation, blockchain-software development and fiat-free crypto-to-crypto exchange from the MTL requirement; pending S.4592 would newly require a licence for virtual-currency kiosks. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 186 words · last cycle 2026-09-28 #### Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access South Carolina licenses and regulates money transmitters and currency-exchange institutions under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act, administered by the Attorney General's Money Services Division rather than a banking regulator. The 2024 modernization, Act No. 218, substantially adopted the multistate Money Transmission Modernization Act model law, raising licence fees to $1,600 and updating net worth, surety bond, permissible investment and control-definition provisions. This MTMA harmonisation reduces multistate licensing friction for transmitters operating across state lines. A pending bill, 4592, introduced January 13, 2026, would add Article 13 to Chapter 3, Title 34, requiring virtual-currency-kiosk owners and operators to hold a money transmitter licence and provide on-screen fraud disclosures. It remains in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and has not been enacted. Separately, S.163 carves out crypto mining, node operation and crypto-to-crypto trading from money-transmitter licensing scope, reducing regulatory friction for digital-asset businesses operating in the state. #### Outlook The trajectory here is escalating: MTMA modernization and the pending kiosk-licensing bill together advance South Carolina's payments regulatory perimeter, with the kiosk bill's committee disposition the key near-term marker to watch. Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28 #### Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access South Carolina's W1a picture this cycle is defined by two legislative instruments moving in opposite directions on the same underlying question: how broadly does the state's money-transmitter licensing regime reach into digital-asset activity. S.163 exempts digital-asset mining, node operation, blockchain-software development, and crypto-to-crypto exchange that does not involve fiat or bank-deposit conversion from the money transmitter licence requirement under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act, Title 35, Chapter 11. This took effect May 19, 2026 and represents a liberalising narrowing of the licensing perimeter for infrastructure-layer digital-asset activity — the categories of activity that do not directly touch a consumer's fiat funds. Running against that liberalisation, a pending bill, S.4592, introduced January 13, 2026, would newly require owners and operators of virtual-currency kiosks to obtain a money transmitter licence and to post on-screen fraud-risk disclosures before completing a transaction. Kiosks are the retail point of contact where consumers convert cash to digital assets, and the proposed licensing requirement targets exactly the segment of activity that S.163's exemptions were careful to exclude from their scope. The bank/non-bank distinction is squarely engaged here: both the existing exemptions and the proposed kiosk requirement apply to non-bank money transmitters and non-bank payment institution/e-money-institution-type entities rather than to bank-channel activity, which continues to operate under separate federal and state banking-law licensing tracks untouched by either bill. The general licensing baseline for crypto exchange and custody businesses that do not qualify for an S.163 exemption remains the Uniform Money Services Act framework as amended by 2024 Act No. 218's adoption of the multistate Money Transmission Modernization Act, with a licence application fee of $1,600 for applications submitted after July 2, 2024. This baseline framework is unchanged by either bill; S.163 carves exemptions out of it, and S.4592 would add a new activity class within its scope. #### Outlook The item to watch is S.4592's progress through the South Carolina General Assembly. It remains at the proposed stage with an estimated 2027 effective horizon, and no evidence of committee advancement beyond its January 2026 introduction was located this cycle. If enacted, it would create a first-of-its-kind, activity-specific licensing and disclosure requirement for virtual-currency kiosks in South Carolina, meaningfully narrowing the practical reach of the S.163 exemptions to non-kiosk infrastructure activity. **2 earlier distinct update(s)** Periodic update · new data 2026-08-24 #### Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access South Carolina's money-transmitter licensing perimeter for digital-asset activity was substantially redrawn this cycle by S.163, signed into law May 19, 2026. The act exempts digital-asset mining, node operation, blockchain software development, and crypto-to-crypto exchange that does not involve exchange for legal tender or bank deposits from money-transmitter licensing requirements under Article 2, Chapter 11, Title 35. The scoping is precise and consequential: the exemption reaches only activity that stays within the crypto-asset ecosystem; any point at which a service converts digital assets into legal tender or bank deposits remains inside the existing licensing perimeter. This is a nonbank payment-institution and e-money-institution question specifically; banks were never subject to the money-transmitter licensing regime this exemption modifies, so the practical beneficiaries are nonbank crypto-infrastructure operators — miners, node operators, blockchain developers, and peer-to-peer exchange platforms — rather than depository institutions. The bank-versus-nonbank distinction this module carries explicitly is squarely at issue in how S.163 was drafted: the exempted activities are activities predominantly conducted by nonbank payment institutions, e-money-adjacent infrastructure providers, and specialised crypto businesses rather than by chartered banks. South Carolina banks conducting any digital-asset-adjacent activity remain governed by their existing bank regulatory framework rather than by the money-transmitter licensing regime S.163 modifies. The underlying licensing architecture beneath this exemption is unchanged: the 2024 SC Anti-Money Laundering Act, which substantially adopted the Money Transmission Modernization Act model law, remains the governing instrument, administered by the Attorney General's Money Services Division through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System, with a standing money-transmitter license fee of $1,600. S.163 operates as a carve-out from that base perimeter rather than a replacement of it. Two further bills remain pending and would move the licensing perimeter in different directions. H.4592, introduced January 13, 2026 and pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, would newly require virtual-currency-kiosk (crypto ATM) owners and operators to hold a money transmitter license under a proposed Article 13, Chapter 3, Title 34, paired with fraud-risk disclosure and a 72-hour refund mechanism for proven-fraud transactions reported within 60 days. This would tighten, not loosen, the licensing perimeter for a specific nonbank cash-in/cash-out channel. H.4251, introduced March 27, 2025 and also pending, would add a new S.C. Code Section 35-11-240 assessing fees on money-transmission licensees generally, disbursed to the state's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund; this is a cost development applicable to the full licensee base rather than a crypto-specific measure. The market-access effect of the S.163 exemption is to remove a licensing barrier that previously could have applied, at least in principle, to node operators and blockchain developers whose activity does not involve customer-funds custody or fiat conversion. By codifying the exemption, South Carolina removes ambiguity for this category of nonbank technical-infrastructure provider. #### Outlook Watch for committee action on H.4592; if it advances, virtual-currency-kiosk operators would face a licensing requirement that does not currently exist, together with fraud-disclosure and refund obligations specific to that channel. Watch also for H.4251's fee provision, which would add a new cost line for all money-transmission licensees, crypto-exposed or not. The exemption boundary S.163 has now drawn — protocol-level activity outside the perimeter, fiat-conversion activity inside it — is likely to remain the reference point against which any further South Carolina crypto-payments legislation this session is read. Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 #### Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access South Carolina's non-bank money-transmission licensing regime completed a structural modernisation step in 2024, with knock-on legislative activity continuing into the current 2025-2026 session. 2024 Act No. 218 formally substituted the chapter's short title from the South Carolina Anti-Money Laundering Act to the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act and adopted Money Transmission Modernization Act provisions, effective 2024-07-02, aligning South Carolina with the multistate model-law approach that other adopting states use to streamline licensing reciprocity and examination-sharing arrangements. Under that framework, annual licence renewal requires proof of minimum net worth of $250,000 and maintenance of adequate security and permissible investments, and licensees must file a quarterly Money Services Call Report through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System within forty-five days of quarter-end, alongside quarterly authorized-delegate adjustment reporting through the system's UAAR function. Two pending 2025-2026 bills would each add to this licensing base in different ways. H.4251, introduced March 27, 2025 and pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, would add a new Section 35-11-240 imposing fees on certain money transfers, with proceeds directed to the state's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund, and would attach a licence-suspension and reapplication bar together with a surety-bond claim mechanism; no forward effective date has been established. Separately, South Carolina's digital-asset law exempts blockchain-protocol software development, node operation, and crypto-to-crypto exchange, without conversion to legal tender or bank deposits, from money-transmitter licensing under the same Title 35, Chapter 11 framework, narrowing the licensing perimeter for that specific category of non-bank digital-asset activity. A third pending bill, H.4592, would move in the opposite direction for virtual-currency kiosks specifically, requiring kiosk owners and operators to obtain a money-transmitter licence, and remains pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee with no recorded vote. Every measure addressed here attaches to non-bank money-services licensees under South Carolina's Uniform Money Services Act; none of this cycle's developments alter the treatment of depository institutions, which are licensed and supervised outside this state money-transmission framework. #### Outlook Watch for committee votes on H.4251 and H.4592, either of which would be the next concrete change to South Carolina's licensing perimeter. H.4251's fee-and-suspension mechanism and its immigration-enforcement funding rationale is a novel policy attachment for a money-transmission statute and merits tracking independent of its prudential content; H.4592's kiosk-licensing requirement would be the state's first licensing regime specific to virtual-currency conversion points. **Sources and findings (7)** 1. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/](https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/) 2. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/](https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/) 3. T3 [https://moneytransmitterlaw.com/state-laws/south-carolina/](https://moneytransmitterlaw.com/state-laws/south-carolina/) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T3 [https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license](https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license) retrieved 2026-07-05 5. T1 [https://banking.sc.gov/](https://banking.sc.gov/) retrieved 2026-07-05 6. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htm](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htm) 7. T3 [https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entail](https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entail) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W1b Conduct, Safeguarding & Promotions Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 South Carolina enacted the Guarantee Banking Act (H.5538, SC Act No. 257), signed 2026-06-30, effective 2026-12-30, prohibiting financial institutions from discriminating in the provision of covered financial services on certain non-risk-based grounds and from providing false reasons for adverse action. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 143 words · last cycle 2026-10-18 #### Conduct, Safeguarding & Financial Promotions South Carolina money transmitters must maintain a surety bond of $50,000 plus $10,000 per additional office, capped at $250,000, and a net worth of at least $250,000. The state does not separately mandate a customer-fund segregation or trust model, leaving safeguarding resting on solvency-style capital requirements rather than fund segregation. Pending Bill 4592 would layer conduct rules onto virtual-currency kiosks specifically: kiosk screens would be required to display a fraud-warning statement, and a full refund would be mandated within 72 hours where a customer proves fraud within 60 days and reports it. Failure to disclose would trigger licence revocation. The bill has not been enacted. #### Outlook Safeguarding remains bond and net-worth based rather than trust-segregation based; conduct rules are emerging fastest around virtual-currency kiosks, addressing only a narrow slice of the broader consumer-protection gap this structure leaves open. Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11 #### Conduct, Safeguarding & Financial Promotions South Carolina enacted the Guarantee Banking Act, H.5538, South Carolina Act No. 257, signed into law on 30 June 2026. The statute adds a new Chapter 47 to Title 34 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and establishes an anti-discrimination conduct regime for covered financial services. The scope of covered financial services, as enacted, is broad: it reaches depository accounts, money transmission — expressly including automated clearing house transfers, payment services, and credit-card network activity — and credit. Within that scope, the Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of covered financial services and separately prohibits a covered provider from making a false statement as to the reasons for an adverse action taken against a customer. This is best read as an anti-debanking conduct law: its structural purpose is to constrain providers from declining or withdrawing covered financial services from a customer, or from mischaracterising the reason for doing so, rather than to impose new prudential or licensing requirements. The effective date is confirmed as 30 December 2026 by the official South Carolina Legislature List of Acts, which records the Act as effective six months after the date of gubernatorial signature. Covered financial-services providers operating in South Carolina — spanning depository institutions, money-transmission licensees running ACH, payment-service, and card-network rails, and credit providers — therefore face a defined compliance horizon rather than an immediate obligation. The inclusion of money transmission within the covered-services definition is notable for payment service providers specifically: a non-bank payment company operating ACH or card-network-adjacent payment services in South Carolina falls within the same anti-discrimination and adverse-action-disclosure perimeter as a depository institution once the Act takes effect, without a differentiated standard being carved out for bank versus non-bank providers in the enacted text as currently understood. No bank-versus-non-bank distinction in the applicable conduct standard has been identified in the material available this cycle; the obligation appears to attach uniformly to covered financial services regardless of the provider's charter type. No enforcement mechanism, supervisory authority, or penalty structure specific to the Guarantee Banking Act has been located in the material reaching this cycle's research; the structural fact established is the scope of covered services and the prohibited conduct, together with the confirmed effective date. #### Outlook The principal date to track is 30 December 2026, when the Guarantee Banking Acts anti-discrimination and adverse-action-disclosure duties become applicable to covered financial-services providers in South Carolina, as scheduled. Providers offering depository accounts, money transmission, or credit in the state should expect this date to mark the point at which the new conduct standard is live, pending any further legislative or regulatory elaboration between now and then. No amendment, delay, or implementing regulation has been identified this cycle. **Sources and findings (5)** 1. T3 [https://www.bondexchange.com/south-carolina-money-transmitter-bond-a-comprehensive-guide/](https://www.bondexchange.com/south-carolina-money-transmitter-bond-a-comprehensive-guide/) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/south-carolina-latest-state-to-implement-money-transmitter-licensing-laws-and](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/south-carolina-latest-state-to-implement-money-transmitter-licensing-laws-and) 3. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htm](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htm) 4. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/](https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/) retrieved 2026-07-05 5. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/1230.htm](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/1230.htm) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W2 Stablecoins & Digital Money Probable confirmed 2026-08-05 South Carolina enacted S.163 (Ch. 47, Title 34), effective May 19, 2026, exempting digital-asset mining, node operation, blockchain software development, and crypto-to-crypto exchange (no fiat/bank-deposit leg) from the state money transmitter licence requirement under Art. 2, Ch. 11, Title 35, while leaving fiat-converting exchanges and custodial wallets redeemable in fiat inside the MTL perimeter. Horizon · 2026-Q3 (±half_year) CLARITY Act revised Senate floor vote_proposed · TT3_ Horizon · 2026-Q3 (±half_year) CLARITY Act revised Senate floor vote_proposed · T_ Horizon · 2026-Q3 (±half_year) CLARITY Act revised Senate floor vote_proposed · TT3_ Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 235 words · last cycle 2026-10-18 #### Stablecoins & Digital Money South Carolina enacted S.163, ratified May 14, 2026 and signed by Governor McMaster, barring state governing authorities from accepting or requiring CBDC payments or participating in federal CBDC pilots. The law protects self-custody rights and excludes privately issued asset-backed stablecoins from the CBDC definition, positioning the state as increasingly crypto-friendly. A pending bill, the Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act (Bill 4256), introduced March 27, 2025, would let the State Treasurer invest unencumbered state funds in digital assets including Bitcoin, capped at 1 million BTC and 3% of the state's digital-asset investment portfolio, subject to independent annual custody audits. It remains in the Ways and Means committee and has not been enacted. At the federal level, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, voted 15-9 on May 14, 2026 to advance the CLARITY Act. The bill missed its July 4, 2026 Senate floor target amid unresolved disputes over stablecoin yield and conflict-of-interest provisions. Absent a state-level payment-stablecoin issuer regime, South Carolina-domiciled issuers and banks operate under the federal GENIUS Act, signed into law July 18, 2025, which established the national regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. #### Outlook This digital-asset legislative program is the most material payments-policy development of the baseline window. The CLARITY Act's revised Senate floor vote is expected in the third quarter of 2026, while the Bitcoin-reserve bill's committee disposition remains the key state-level marker to watch. Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11 #### Stablecoins & Digital Money South Carolina enacted S.163, South Carolina Act No. 208, effective 19 May 2026, adding Chapter 47 to Title 34 of the state code. The instrument establishes a structural position on digital money in the state across two distinct instrument types. First, it bans South Carolina state agencies and political subdivisions from accepting, requiring, or testing payment in a central bank digital currency, and expressly bars the state from participating in any Federal Reserve CBDC pilot programme. Second, and distinctly, the statute is characterised in secondary reporting as protecting the acceptance of privately-issued, legal-tender or treasury-backed stablecoins as a payment method, treating such stablecoins as distinct from a federally-issued CBDC and therefore outside the scope of the acceptance ban. The distinction the statute draws — between a federally-issued CBDC, which state entities are barred from accepting or testing, and a privately-issued, treasury-backed stablecoin, which remains an acceptable payment instrument — is the operative structural fact for digital-money market participants assessing South Carolina as an operating environment. A stablecoin issuer or payment provider offering a privately-issued, asset-backed stablecoin as a payment rail to counterparties in South Carolina is not caught by the CBDC-acceptance ban; a federal CBDC pilot, by contrast, could not be tested or accepted by a state agency or political subdivision even on a voluntary basis under the current statute. The same instrument separately narrows the states money-transmitter licensing perimeter for specified crypto-infrastructure activities — digital-asset mining, blockchain node operation, blockchain software development, and non-fiat crypto-to-crypto exchange — removing these from the Title 35 Chapter 11 licensing requirement, while preserving Attorney General fraud-enforcement authority over mining-as-a-service and staking-as-a-service solicitation schemes. This licensing change is adjacent to, but distinct from, the stablecoin-and-CBDC acceptance provisions: it affects who must hold a money-transmitter licence to operate certain crypto infrastructure in the state, rather than what payment instruments a counterparty may accept. Taken together, the two strands of S.163 position South Carolina as a jurisdiction that has moved to protect private digital-asset and stablecoin payment acceptance and crypto-infrastructure operation, while foreclosing any state-level engagement with a federally-issued CBDC. This is a liberalising move for private digital money and a restrictive move specifically with respect to CBDC, within the same instrument. #### Outlook The CBDC-acceptance ban is, as of this cycle, a policy position rather than an operational constraint, since no Federal Reserve CBDC pilot has reached a stage where South Carolina state-agency participation was a live possibility. Its significance lies in foreclosing a future state of affairs. The stablecoin-acceptance protection is already operative from 19 May 2026 and provides a degree of legal clarity for private stablecoin payment acceptance in the state. Market participants offering treasury-backed or legal-tender-backed stablecoins as a payment rail into South Carolina should treat the acceptance protection as in force as scheduled; no further rulemaking or implementing guidance on the stablecoin-CBDC distinction has been identified this cycle. **1 earlier distinct update(s)** Periodic update · new data 2026-08-24 #### Stablecoins & Digital Money South Carolina's S.163 reaches stablecoin- and digital-money-adjacent territory primarily through two provisions: a ban on state governing authorities accepting or requiring central-bank-digital-currency payments or participating in a CBDC test, and a tax-parity rule requiring that digital-asset payments be taxed on the same basis as if conducted in United States legal tender. Both provisions are part of the same comprehensive S.163 framework signed into law May 19, 2026, though this specific pairing is assessed at Probable rather than High confidence in the underlying interpreter record. The CBDC-participation ban is a state-level policy commitment rather than a licensing or prudential rule: it forecloses South Carolina governing authorities from adopting or piloting a central-bank digital currency for state payments purposes. It does not address privately-issued stablecoins directly, and South Carolina has no state-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve-requirement, or redemption-right regime; any privately-issued stablecoin activity touching South Carolina remains governed by the federal layer. The tax-parity provision is narrower in scope but more immediately operative: it prohibits South Carolina tax authorities from singling out digital-asset payments, which would include stablecoin payments, for disparate tax treatment relative to an equivalent legal-tender transaction. For a payments business processing stablecoin transactions with South Carolina tax nexus, the practical effect is a non-discrimination floor rather than an affirmative stablecoin-specific compliance obligation. #### Outlook Watch for whether the CBDC-participation ban is tested against any future federal CBDC pilot that might seek state-level participation, and for whether South Carolina moves toward any bespoke state-level stablecoin instrument given the absence of one today. The interpreter record does not currently distinguish a South Carolina-specific stablecoin issuance track from the underlying federal framework, and this brief does not anticipate one without further evidence. ### W3 Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC has no payments-specific operational-resilience/critical-infrastructure regime akin to DORA. Applicable standing framework is the general breach-notification statute (since 2009) and the Insurance Data Security Act, layered under federal GLBA/FFIEC expectations for banks. Kept on Dataprotection.gi, not restated here: data and cloud switching obligations on service providers, including notice periods and charges. [Open its jurisdiction pages on Dataprotection.gi →](https://dataprotection.gi/jurisdictions/) Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 113 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure South Carolina has no payments-specific operational-resilience or critical-infrastructure statute comparable to the EU's DORA in force. The applicable standing framework is the state's general data-breach notification statute, in force since 2009. A related standing framework, the South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act, effective January 1, 2019, requires licensees to notify the Director no later than 72 hours after determining a cybersecurity event meeting materiality thresholds, modeled on the NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law. #### Outlook This is a genuine regulatory gap rather than a coverage gap in research; absent new legislative activity, the breach-notification and insurance-security baselines remain the operative framework for payments operational resilience in the state. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (5)** 1. T1 [https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-39/chapter-1/section-39-1-90/](https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-39/chapter-1/section-39-1-90/) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/south-carolina-data-privacy-laws/data-breach-notification/](https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/south-carolina-data-privacy-laws/data-breach-notification/) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T1 [https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/reporting-security-breach-businesses](https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/reporting-security-breach-businesses) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t38c099.php](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t38c099.php) retrieved 2026-07-05 5. T3 [https://sentra.io/learn/south-carolina-data-breach-notification-law-requirements](https://sentra.io/learn/south-carolina-data-breach-notification-law-requirements) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W4 Scheme & Network Compliance Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 No SC interchange/surcharge statute in force; federal Durbin Amendment debit-interchange cap, Expressions Hair Design surcharge jurisprudence and scheme rules govern. SC's own scheme-adjacent statute is the criminal Financial Transaction Card Crime Act. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 100 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Scheme & Network Compliance South Carolina has no state-specific card-interchange or surcharge statute in force; card-network compliance operates under the federal baseline, including the Durbin Amendment debit-interchange cap and the Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman surcharge-disclosure jurisprudence. The state's own scheme-adjacent statute, the Financial Transaction Card Crime Act, defines an 'acquirer' as authorizing merchants to accept card payments and criminalizes fraudulent submission of transaction records not resulting from an actual sale as a felony. #### Outlook Absent state-level interchange or surcharge legislation, card-scheme compliance in South Carolina will continue to track federal and network rules rather than a distinct state regime. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (3)** 1. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.php](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.php) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://ebizcharge.com/blog/credit-card-surcharge-a-state-by-state-legal-analysis/](https://ebizcharge.com/blog/credit-card-surcharge-a-state-by-state-legal-analysis/) 3. T3 [https://www.attorneytruslow.com/blog/2023/december/south-carolina-financial-transaction-card-crime-/](https://www.attorneytruslow.com/blog/2023/december/south-carolina-financial-transaction-card-crime-/) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W5 Payment Corridor Dynamics Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC has no dedicated corridor/remittance policy distinct from its general money-transmitter regime. Cross-border flows channel via nationally licensed transmitters operating through SC-registered authorized delegates. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 78 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Payment Corridor Dynamics Cross-border remittance flows through South Carolina are channeled via nationally licensed money transmitters, such as Western Union, operating through South Carolina-registered authorized delegates under the Uniform Money Services Act, with FinCEN MSB registration as the federal precondition. No South Carolina-specific corridor policy exists; corridor access rides on the general money-transmitter-licence and agent framework. #### Outlook Corridor dynamics in South Carolina are expected to remain stable, tracking the general licensing framework rather than any dedicated remittance-corridor policy. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (3)** 1. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/](https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license](https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/](https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/) ### W6 Industry Structure & Commercial Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC's banking structure is marked by heavy out-of-state deposit ownership and branch contraction, prompting a credit-union-led coalition seeking expanded public-deposit access. State is home to LPL Financial, SouthState, and the Carolina Fintech Hub ecosystem. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 108 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Industry Structure & Commercial Dynamics 78% of all South Carolina bank deposits were held in out-of-state banks in 2023, alongside a net decrease of 233 bank branches statewide against a net increase of 24 credit union branches over the same period. South Carolina law bars local governments from depositing taxpayer funds in credit unions, confining public deposits to traditional banks. A coalition of credit unions and local governments, the Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition, is pushing to change that law, opposed by the SC Bankers Association. #### Outlook Deposit concentration and branch contraction, combined with the credit-union public-deposit restriction, are generating political pressure that could reshape the state's banking-market structure. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (6)** 1. T3 [https://www.postandcourier.com/kingstree/community-news/palmetto-public-deposits-coalition-launches-to-strengthen-south-carolinas-financial-ecosystem/article_be4867ea-8cdd-11ef-b1ec-d78129377937.html](https://www.postandcourier.com/kingstree/community-news/palmetto-public-deposits-coalition-launches-to-strengthen-south-carolinas-financial-ecosystem/article_be4867ea-8cdd-11ef-b1ec-d78129377937.html) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/](https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T3 [https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/](https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/](https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/) retrieved 2026-07-05 5. T3 [https://finovate.com/category/finovatespring-2026/](https://finovate.com/category/finovatespring-2026/) retrieved 2026-07-05 6. T4 [https://www.carolinafintechhub.org/](https://www.carolinafintechhub.org/) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W7 Legal & Litigation Confirmed confirmed 2026-07-05 SC's payments-adjacent enforcement activity centers on the AG's multistate coordination role, notably the 47-state $80M BSA/AML settlement with Block Inc. (Cash App), alongside historical CashCall/Western Sky consumer-lending settlements. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 60 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Legal & Litigation South Carolina's Attorney General joined a 47-state, $80 million multistate settlement with Block, Inc. over alleged BSA/AML program deficiencies tied to Cash App; Block also agreed to hire an independent compliance consultant. #### Outlook This settlement is the standing enforcement marker for the baseline window; further multistate coordinated actions against non-bank payment platforms are the pattern to monitor. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (2)** 1. T3 [https://www.fitsnews.com/2025/01/22/s-c-attorney-general-joins-80-million-enforcement-action/](https://www.fitsnews.com/2025/01/22/s-c-attorney-general-joins-80-million-enforcement-action/) 2. T1 [https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/enforcement-actions](https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/enforcement-actions) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W8 Merchant Acquiring & Risk Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC has a regulatory gap for merchant cash advance funders/brokers: no licensing, bonding, or registration requirement, unlike SC's regulated payday-lending regime. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 61 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Merchant Acquiring & Risk No licensing, bonding, background-check, or registration requirement exists for merchant cash advance funders or brokers operating in South Carolina, in contrast to the state's regulated payday-lending regime. #### Outlook This gap is treated as not applicable within the current regulatory posture rather than a research shortfall; it remains a dated entry to monitor for any future legislative activity. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (2)** 1. T4 [https://grantphillipslaw.com/merchant-cash-advance-attorney-south-carolina/](https://grantphillipslaw.com/merchant-cash-advance-attorney-south-carolina/) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T1 [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.php](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.php) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W9 Product Innovation & Market Development limited signal Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC community banks are adopting FedNow instant-payments infrastructure, mirroring the nationwide community-bank-heavy trend. Separately, S.163 is framed as a competitiveness play to attract crypto-friendly capital and businesses. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 103 words · last cycle 2026-09-05 #### Product Innovation & Market Development Named South Carolina institutions live on FedNow include Bank of York, Dedicated Community Bank, and Security Federal Bank; nationally FedNow reached 1,400+ participants by July 2025, with community banks and credit unions comprising roughly 80% of participants. Separately, S.163 is framed as a competitiveness and innovation play intended to attract miners, blockchain operators and crypto-friendly capital to South Carolina, joining states like Kentucky in enacting self-custody and anti-discrimination protections. #### Outlook Instant-payments adoption among South Carolina community banks is expected to continue tracking the national trend, while S.163's competitiveness framing positions the state to compete for digital-asset business investment. Periodic update · new data 2026-08-24 #### Product Innovation & Market Development South Carolina's product-innovation and market-development picture this cycle centers on two threads within the S.163 framework and a separate pending bill. S.163 itself, alongside its licensing exemptions, includes the CBDC-participation ban and digital-asset tax-parity provisions discussed under this monitor's stablecoin tracking; from a product-innovation lens, these provisions signal a state policy environment oriented toward accommodating private digital-asset activity while foreclosing state-level CBDC adoption, a combination that favours privately-built payment and settlement products over any prospective public-sector digital-currency alternative. Separately, H.4256, the Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act, remains pending and has not advanced to enactment this cycle. If enacted, it would authorize the State Treasurer to hold Bitcoin and other approved digital assets in a state reserve via secure custody solutions — a novel category of state-level digital-asset market participation that would be among the more product-innovative developments in this space were it to pass, since it would create institutional-scale custody and reserve-management demand directly from a state treasury function. #### Outlook Watch for whether H.4256 advances out of committee; enactment would create a new institutional-custody use case within South Carolina's market and would likely draw interest from custody-solution providers positioning for state-treasury-scale digital-asset reserve mandates. Absent enactment, this remains a signal of legislative appetite rather than a live market-development event. **Sources and findings (4)** 1. T3 [https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednow](https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednow) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T1 [https://www.frbservices.org/news/fed360/issues/071625/fednow-service-two-years-growth-innovation](https://www.frbservices.org/news/fed360/issues/071625/fednow-service-two-years-growth-innovation) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T3 [https://www.csiweb.com/what-to-know/content-hub/blog/exploring-the-fednow-service-and-instant-payments/](https://www.csiweb.com/what-to-know/content-hub/blog/exploring-the-fednow-service-and-instant-payments/) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T3 [https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entail](https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entail) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W10 Consumer Protection & APP Fraud Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 Consumer payments protection runs through SCDCA under the SC Consumer Protection Code and SCUTPA, plus a 2021 elder-exploitation law. No SC-specific APP-fraud reimbursement mandate exists; reliance on federal Reg E and scheme zero-liability. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 99 words · last cycle 2026-08-06 #### Consumer Protection & APP Fraud South Carolina's 2021 elder financial exploitation law (S.425) allows financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, broker-dealers and investment advisers, to decline, delay, or report transactions suspected of financially exploiting vulnerable adults aged 55 and older, without requiring such action, and exempts good-faith actors from liability. No South Carolina-specific authorized-push-payment fraud mandatory reimbursement regime comparable to the UK's exists; reliance is on federal Regulation E and card-network zero-liability policies. #### Outlook Elder-exploitation protections remain active and discretionary, while the absence of an APP-fraud reimbursement mandate leaves consumers reliant on federal and scheme-level protections for authorized-push-payment losses. Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 #### Consumer Protection & APP Fraud South Carolina's one consumer-protection development this cycle targets a specific fraud vector rather than a general APP-fraud regime: cash-to-crypto conversion through virtual-currency kiosks. H.4592 would mandate a written risk disclosure and an on-screen anti-fraud warning statement for new customers of virtual-currency kiosks, with licence revocation as the penalty for a missing warning, alongside the underlying requirement that kiosk owners and operators hold a money-transmitter licence in the first place. The bill remains pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee with no recorded committee vote as of this cycle. The structure of the proposed remedy is notable: rather than a disclosure-only requirement, the bill ties the consumer-facing warning obligation directly to licensure, so that a licensee's failure to display the mandated warning becomes a licence-revocation event rather than a lesser civil penalty. That pairing of consumer disclosure with the licensing sanction itself is a stronger enforcement mechanism than a standalone disclosure mandate would be, though its practical effect depends on the bill advancing past committee. No enforcement action, guidance, or rule under this bill exists yet, since it has not been enacted; the current baseline for virtual-currency-kiosk customers in South Carolina remains whatever protections apply under general consumer law rather than a kiosk-specific regime. #### Outlook Watch for a committee vote on H.4592. If it advances, South Carolina would gain its first kiosk-specific consumer-protection regime for virtual-currency conversion points, combining a disclosure mandate with a licence-revocation penalty for non-compliance; if it stalls, as it has for the duration of this cycle, cash-to-crypto kiosk transactions in the state continue without a kiosk-specific warning or disclosure requirement. **Sources and findings (5)** 1. T1 [https://www.scjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/08-Chapter-8-Consumer-Protection.pdf](https://www.scjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/08-Chapter-8-Consumer-Protection.pdf) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T1 [https://governor.sc.gov/news/2021-07/gov-henry-mcmaster-signs-bill-protect-vulnerable-adults-financial-exploitation](https://governor.sc.gov/news/2021-07/gov-henry-mcmaster-signs-bill-protect-vulnerable-adults-financial-exploitation) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T1 [https://www.richmondfed.org/banking/banker_resources/regulatory_perspectives/news_flash/2025/20250221_elderexploit](https://www.richmondfed.org/banking/banker_resources/regulatory_perspectives/news_flash/2025/20250221_elderexploit) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T4 [https://hayscauley.net/consumer-rights-act-in-south-carolina-protecting-your-interests/](https://hayscauley.net/consumer-rights-act-in-south-carolina-protecting-your-interests/) retrieved 2026-07-05 5. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/](https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W11 AML/CFT & Financial Crime [Sourced from Sentinel.gi ↗](https://sentinel.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-south-carolina/#sec-dom-D7) Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 Sentinel.gi payments-context position: SC money transmitters operate under the SC Anti-Money Laundering Act, requiring BSA/AML compliance and FinCEN MSB registration. Most material recent signal is SC's participation in the $80M multistate Block Inc. (Cash App) settlement. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 105 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### AML/CFT & Financial Crime This module's intelligence is sourced from the Sentinel.gi feed; original illicit-finance analysis is not re-performed here. All South Carolina money transmitters must be licensed under the South Carolina Anti-Money Laundering Act, with FinCEN MSB registration a precondition to state licensure. South Carolina participated in the 47-state, $80 million multistate settlement with Block, Inc. over BSA/AML program deficiencies tied to Cash App, which required an independent consultant review of AML program comprehensiveness. #### Outlook For further illicit-finance analysis of the Block, Inc. settlement, see the Sentinel.gi feed and the Financial Integrity Monitor; this module continues to track the licensing-precondition and supervision angle only. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (5)** 1. T3 sentinel.https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license 2. T? FIM (sentinel.gi) per-JID baseline profile — United States — South Carolina — South Carolina operates entirely within the uniform US federal AML/CFT/CPF perimeter (BSA, FinCEN rules, OFAC sanctions); it has no independent state sanctions regime. Like most US states, SC imposes no beneficial-ownership disclosure at LLC/corporate formation, relying on the now sharply narrowed federal Corporate Transparency Act backstop. 3. T? FIM (sentinel.gi) gaps_register_cumulative (issue FIM-BASE-GAP-001) — Gap: sourcing-thinness 4. T? FIM (sentinel.gi) gaps_register_cumulative (issue FIM-BASE-GAP-002) — Gap: legal-gap 5. T? FIM (sentinel.gi) gaps_register_cumulative (issue FIM-BASE-GAP-003) — Gap: capacity-deficit ### W12 Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 SC's correspondent-banking landscape is defined by consolidation and a public-deposit rule confining government deposits to traditional banks, even as 78% of deposits sit in out-of-state institutions and rural branch closures strain local access. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 77 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access South Carolina's correspondent-access landscape is shaped by an asymmetry between bank and non-bank market participants. State law confines public deposits to traditional banks, excluding credit unions, even as 78% of South Carolina deposits sit in out-of-state institutions. Rural branch closures are straining local correspondent and settlement access. #### Outlook Correspondent-access strain is likely to intensify as deposit-market consolidation and rural branch contraction continue, keeping the public-deposit restriction a live point of political contest. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (4)** 1. T3 [https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/](https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/](https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/) retrieved 2026-07-05 3. T1 [https://banking.sc.gov/](https://banking.sc.gov/) retrieved 2026-07-05 4. T3 [https://scbankers.org/regulatory/](https://scbankers.org/regulatory/) retrieved 2026-07-05 ### W13 Commercial Intelligence (M&A, Investment & Product) Probable confirmed 2026-07-05 Trailing-12-month commercial activity touching SC includes out-of-state bank expansion (Huntington, Carter Bankshares) and S.163's digital-asset legislative event. No SC-headquartered payments fintech M&A or funding event identified. Standing sub-brief · as of 5 July 2026 108 words · last cycle 2026-07-05 #### Commercial Intelligence (M&A, Investment & Product) Huntington Bancshares closed its acquisition of Dallas-based Veritex Holdings on October 19, 2025, and is targeting market-share expansion into North Carolina and South Carolina with plans to build dozens of new branches; deal value was not publicly disclosed. Carter Bankshares, a Virginia-based bank, opened a loan production office in South Carolina in November 2025 and is considering acquiring a bank to widen its Carolinas footprint, especially in South Carolina; this is a rumoured, early-stage move with no target or valuation disclosed. #### Outlook Continued out-of-state bank consolidation into South Carolina is likely, compounding the deposit-concentration dynamics tracked under industry structure and correspondent access. no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief ** Sources and findings (3)** 1. T3 [https://www.americanbanker.com/tag/mergers-and-acquisitions](https://www.americanbanker.com/tag/mergers-and-acquisitions) retrieved 2026-07-05 2. T3 [https://www.americanbanker.com/news/the-five-biggest-bank-m-a-deals-of-2025](https://www.americanbanker.com/news/the-five-biggest-bank-m-a-deals-of-2025) 3. T1 [https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/](https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/) retrieved 2026-07-05 ** No modules match.** Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups. ## Editorial metadata Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render. Editorial metadata for United States – South Carolina| Field | Value | |---|---| | `trust.lawyer_review.status` | never_reviewed | | `trust.lawyer_review.reviewer` | no reviewer on record | | ` trust.content_source` | ai_generated | ## Provenance and declared absence **Disclosure model:** module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is. **Sentinel-fed modules** receive no special rendering treatment. `sentinel_feed` is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page. **Family taxonomy** is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning. **Suppressed by doctrine:** derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; `derived_scores` = `{"legal_accessibility": {"per_product": {"account_to_account": "regulated", "cards": "regulated", "stablecoin": "emerging-regime"}}}`. **Band honesty:** uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-10-21. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band. **Orphan deltas:** 1 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card. **Envelope:** baseline resolved at `jurisdiction_json.baseline`; 14 module(s), 54 finding(s), 130 source(s) in the cumulative register. Think something on this page is wrong? [Report an error](https://payments.gi/legal/#contact).