Florida Statute 560.125 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 560
MONEY SERVICES BUSINESSES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 560.125

560.125 Unlicensed activity; penalties.—

(1) A person may not engage in the business of a money services business or deferred presentment provider in this state unless the person is licensed or exempted from licensure under this chapter. A deferred presentment transaction conducted by a person not authorized to conduct such transaction under this chapter is void, and the unauthorized person has no right to collect, receive, or retain any principal, interest, or charges relating to such transaction.

(2) Only a money services business licensed under part II of this chapter may appoint an authorized vendor. Any person acting as a vendor for an unlicensed money transmitter or payment instrument issuer becomes the principal thereof, and no longer merely acts as a vendor, and is liable to the holder or remitter as a principal money transmitter or payment instrument seller.

(3) Any person whose substantial interests are affected by a proceeding brought by the office pursuant to this chapter may, pursuant to s. 560.113, petition any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the person or activity that is the subject of the proceeding from violating any of the provisions of this section. For the purpose of this subsection, any money services business licensed under this chapter, any person residing in this state, and any person whose principal place of business is in this state are presumed to be substantially affected. In addition, the interests of a trade organization or association are deemed substantially affected if the interests of any of its members are affected.

(4) The office may issue and serve upon any person who violates any of the provisions of this section a complaint seeking a cease and desist order or impose an administrative fine as provided in s. 560.114.

(5) A person who violates this section, if the violation involves:

(a) Currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency of a value exceeding $300 but less than $20,000 in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency of a value totaling or exceeding $20,000 but less than $100,000 in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) Currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency of a value totaling or exceeding $100,000 in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) In addition to the penalties authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, a person who has been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, having violated this section may be sentenced to pay a fine of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the value of the currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency, except that on a second or subsequent violation of this section the fine may be up to the greater of $500,000 or quintuple the value of the currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency.

(7) A person who violates this section is also liable for a civil penalty of up to the greater of the value of the currency, monetary value, payment instruments, or virtual currency involved or $25,000.

(8) In any prosecution brought pursuant to this section, the common law corpus delicti rule does not apply. The defendant’s confession or admission is admissible during trial without the state having to prove the corpus delicti if the court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the defendant’s confession or admission is trustworthy. Before the court admits the defendant’s confession or admission, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is sufficient corroborating evidence that tends to establish the trustworthiness of the statement by the defendant. Hearsay evidence is admissible during the presentation of evidence at the hearing. In making its determination, the court may consider all relevant corroborating evidence, including the defendant’s statements.

History.—s. 1, ch. 94-238; s. 1, ch. 94-354; s. 9, ch. 2000-360; s. 705, ch. 2003-261; s. 20, ch. 2008-177; s. 4, ch. 2014-81; s. 4, ch. 2022-113.

F.S. 560.125 on Google Scholar

F.S. 560.125 on Casetext

Amendments to 560.125

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 560.125

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S560.125 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - UNLAWFUL MONEY TRANSMITTER BUSINESS - F: T

S560.125 5a - FRAUD - MONEY SERVICE BUSINESS UNAUTH PERSON $300-$20K - F: T

S560.125 5b - FRAUD - MONEY SERVICE BUSINESS UNAUTH PERS $20K-$100K - F: S

S560.125 5c - FRAUD - MONEY SERVICE BUSINESS UNAUTH PERSON $100K+ - F: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 560.125

Total Results: 14

Jane Jeischa Aldana Perez, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jhourdan Hernandez v. Gregory Tony as Sherriff of Broward County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-04-03

Snippet: service business, in violation of section 560.125(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2022); (5) money

State v. Espinoza

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-01-30

Citation: 264 So. 3d 1055

Snippet: with the State of Florida in violation of section 560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), and, in Counts 2 and

State v. Espinoza

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-01-30

Citation: 264 So. 3d 1055

Snippet: with the State of Florida in violation of section 560.125, Florida Statutes (2013), and, in Counts 2 and

Andrews v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-01-04

Citation: 207 So. 3d 889, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 89

Snippet: omitted) (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)). Further, such

James Robertson v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-07-10

Citation: 143 So. 3d 907, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 497, 2014 WL 3360330, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 2159

Snippet: excessive sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added)

Yacob v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-03-27

Citation: 136 So. 3d 539, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 174, 2014 WL 1243782, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1030

Snippet: 2463 (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (quoting Weems

Geter v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-06-26

Citation: 115 So. 3d 385, 2013 WL 3197162, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10084

Snippet: sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. [551], at 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1. That right, we have

Hall v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-12-20

Citation: 109 So. 3d 704, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 773, 2012 WL 6619321, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2593

Snippet: function in the constitutional design.” Id. at 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183. “To implement this framework we have

Walle v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-09-28

Citation: 99 So. 3d 967, 2012 WL 4465555, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16471

Snippet: 2463 (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)). Accordingly

State v. Exantus

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-04-29

Citation: 59 So. 3d 359, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6060, 2011 WL 1616570

Snippet: $20,000 and less than $100,000 under sections 560.125(5)(b) and 896.101(3), Florida Statutes (2008).

Carwise v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-07-19

Citation: 821 So. 2d 308, 2002 WL 312513

Snippet: standard on two occasions. See Sections 92.565 and 560.125(8), Florida Statutes. [3] The supreme court has

In Re Forfeiture of $171,900

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-05-20

Citation: 711 So. 2d 1269, 1998 WL 251213

Snippet: without a license, a felony violation of section 560.125, Florida Statutes (1995). The Claimants' primary

Champlin v. Cochran

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-11-23

Citation: 125 So. 2d 565

Snippet: ex rel. Fensky v. Leinecke, Sheriff, 290 Ill. 560, 125 N.E. 513; Abbott *567 Bros. v. United States,

McMillan v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1910-06-15

Citation: 60 Fla. 131

Snippet: 484, 43 South. Rep. 495, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 560, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1077; *141I. O. T. Co. v. Saunders