U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED MONEY ORDERS AND TRAVELER’S CHECKS

12 U.S.C. § 2501

Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds and declares that—(1) the books and records of banking and financial organizations and business associations engaged in issuing and selling money orders and traveler’s checks do not, as a matter of business practice, show the last known addresses of purchasers of such instruments;(2) a substantial majority of such purchasers reside in the States where such instruments are purchased;(3) the States wherein the purchasers of money orders and traveler’s checks reside should, as a matter of equity among the several States, be entitled to the proceeds of such instruments in the event of abandonment;(4) it is a burden on interstate commerce that the proceeds of such instruments are not being distributed to the States entitled thereto; and(5) the cost of maintaining and retrieving addresses of purchasers of money orders and traveler’s checks is an additional burden on interstate commerce since it has been determined that most purchasers reside in the State of purchase of such instruments.(Pub. L. 93–495, title VI, § 601, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1525.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesApplicability to Sums Payable on Money Orders, Etc., Deemed Abandoned on or After February 1, 1965; Exception

Pub. L. 93–495, title VI, § 604, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1526, provided that: “This title [enacting this chapter] shall be applicable to sums payable on money orders, traveler’s checks, and similar written instruments deemed abandoned on or after February 1, 1965, except to the extent that such sums have been paid over to a State prior to January 1, 1974.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (2023). · cites it 2× “1525 , 12 U. S. C. § 2501 et seq.—governs the products at issue, and therefore, as a general matter, the abandoned proceeds should escheat to the State where the products were pur- chased.”
Travelers Express Co., Inc. v. State of Minn., 506 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Minnesota 1981). · cites it 2× “In 1974, Congress acted to modify this rule as applied to money orders and traveler’s checks when it enacted the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2501 et seq. Congress found that a substantial majority of the purchasers of such…”
First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 529 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “The plaintiff-intervenor has further alleged that tolling agreements preserved the FDIC’s goodwill claim regardless of whether 12 U.S.C. § 2501 was tolled. The plaintiff-intervenor also states that 12 U.”
Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (2023). · cites it 2× “1525 , 12 U. S. C. §2501 et seq.—governs the products at issue, and therefore, as a general matter, the abandoned proceeds should escheat to the State where the products were purchased.”
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “Relator alleges that “[p]ursuant to federal statutory law, as established by 12 U.S.C. § 2501 , et seq., a State is authorized to escheat cashier’s checks when the holder’s records show that the abandoned check was purchased in that State.”
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2021). “]” 12 U.S.C. § 2501 (1). Accordingly, Congress set out rules for determining which State could escheat sums “payable on a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.