Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 2513

Should Companies Have to Disclose Their ‘Beneficial Owners’ at Formation to Deter the Use of Shell Companies?

Argument in favor

The opaque nature of American LLCs allows illicit money to enter the U.S. financial system and real estate market. These dirty funds can then fund international crime, terrorism, and more. Requiring companies to disclose their beneficial ownership will help fight money laundering and help law enforcement investigate and prosecute financial crimes, and won’t be an onerous burden that deters law-abiding people from founding new LLCs.

jimK's Opinion
···
10/22/2019
Yes, let’s close the loop holes that allow individuals or corporations to hide their controlling interests of shell companies- often just placeholders use to protect illegal or unethical people and practices. I cannot believe that the costs could be excessive; the legislation requires names, addresses and passport numbers- none of which would seem to be very costly to comply with. If a business entity is licensed or registered, why shouldn’t this information be required? Transparency limits the ability of those who could abuse our society’s easily establishment and licensing of companies from hiding in the shadows when their companies engage in abusive, unethical or illegal practices.
Like (89)
Follow
Share
Brian's Opinion
···
10/22/2019
Shell companies should be illegal. All companies should disclose the source of their funding.
Like (52)
Follow
Share
larubia's Opinion
···
10/22/2019
Yes, companies should disclose their beneficial owners. This will crack down on money laundering, criminal activity, terrorism, and all of the shady dealings that go on with shell companies.
Like (39)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Existing regulations and rules already provide enough information on companies’ beneficial ownership. This bill would impose duplicative burdensome reporting requirements that’ll hurt those who can least afford to comply with them — small businesses. It also raises serious privacy and cybersecurity concerns, as it collects a lot of personal information and stores it with the federal government, creating a massive target for hackers.

DumbocratsSUCK's Opinion
···
10/22/2019
Always vote NO on the greasy slime dumbocrat bills!!!
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Gregory's Opinion
···
10/22/2019
More bills from the do nothing socialist democrats that just bloat the federal government. Drain the swamp and lets not make it any larger. Winning 2020
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Rabbit's Opinion
···
10/23/2019
So, this is actually the sort of thing I am staunchly for... but this part makes no sense: "U.S. companies that employ more than 20 workers and have more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales would be exempt from this bill’s mandates."
Like (3)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed October 22nd, 2019
    Roll Call Vote 249 Yea / 173 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedMay 3rd, 2019
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • IntroReferral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  • Floor
    Mr. Davidson (OH) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services. (text: CR H8368)
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8365-8370)
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 646. (consideration: CR H8316-8339)
  • Floor
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • Floor
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 249 - 173 (Roll no. 577).
  • Floor
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 197 - 224 (Roll no. 576).
  • Floor
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes on the Davidson (OH) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to require a court-issued subpoena for specified requests in the underlying bill.
  • Floor
    Mr. Davidson (OH) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services.
  • Floor
    The House adopted the amendments en gross as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • Floor
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2513.
  • Floor
    The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • Floor
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 2513 as unfinished business.
  • Floor
    On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
  • Floor
    Ms. Waters moved that the Committee rise.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Davidson (OH) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Waters demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 646, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Davidson (OH) amendment No. 5.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Carolyn B. Maloney (NY) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McHenry demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 646, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Carolyn B. Maloney (NY) amendment No. 4.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 646, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Brown (MD) amendment No. 3.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 646, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hill (AR) amendment No. 2.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Burgess amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Waters demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 646, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Burgess amendment No. 1.
  • Floor
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 2513.
  • Floor
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Lauren Underwood to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
  • Floor
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 646 and Rule XVIII.
  • Floor
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2513 with 1 hour of general debate. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 646.
  • Floor
    Rule H. Res. 646 passed House.
  • Floor
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 646 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2513 with 1 hour of general debate. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • Calendars
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 180.
  • Committee
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 116-227.
  • Committee
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 16.
  • Committee
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • IntroReferral
    Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed October 22nd, 2019
    Roll Call Vote 249 Yea / 173 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedMay 3rd, 2019
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    jimK's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Yes, let’s close the loop holes that allow individuals or corporations to hide their controlling interests of shell companies- often just placeholders use to protect illegal or unethical people and practices. I cannot believe that the costs could be excessive; the legislation requires names, addresses and passport numbers- none of which would seem to be very costly to comply with. If a business entity is licensed or registered, why shouldn’t this information be required? Transparency limits the ability of those who could abuse our society’s easily establishment and licensing of companies from hiding in the shadows when their companies engage in abusive, unethical or illegal practices.
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    Brian's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Shell companies should be illegal. All companies should disclose the source of their funding.
    Like (52)
    Follow
    Share
    larubia's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Yes, companies should disclose their beneficial owners. This will crack down on money laundering, criminal activity, terrorism, and all of the shady dealings that go on with shell companies.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    Leo's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Secrecy equals corruption.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Hillary's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    I'm sick of and disgusted by companies scheming to get more than they deserve by hiding their true owners, their true motives, their real tax breaks.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Patrick's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/23/2019
    Why do republicans hate laws requiring transparency? Well it makes it harder to be a crook of course. And it means there’s consequences when they get caught being crooks. See republicans are all for “law and order” as long as it’s people wearing FUBU going to prison, not white guys wearing three piece pinstriped suits.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Ayush's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Yes, this will help limit corruption.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Kathi13's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    We need more transparency in every field.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    burrkitty's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Anything that breaks the tax avoiders greedy schemes is good. Support people not constructs. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    MarianToon's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/23/2019
    Wrong for Montana Rep Gianforte to vote Nay. I believe transparency is needed for democracy!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Frank-001's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Representatives, Support HR 2513 and put an end to money laundering as well as the use of anonymous shell companies. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 should be subtitled the "Laundromat Act." I'm sure it's no coincidence that this bill has come up a few days after Netflix released the movie, "The Laundromat" directed by Steven Soderbergh starring Meryl Streep, Gary Oldman, Antonio Banderas, Sharon Stone and James Cromwell. The movie is based on the book with the explanatory title "Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite" by Jake Bernstein. As the film makes perfectly clear, its long past time for our lawmakers pass significant legislation to crack down hard on money laundering in the U.S. through anonymous shell companies. Companies must be made to disclose their true, beneficial owners at the time the company is formed to prevent bad actors from using anonymous shell companies to thwart law enforcement and hide their illicit activities.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Lori's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Transparency and truth. I am done with corruption
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    RjGoodman's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Yes, using an LLC incorporation, it is easy to hide money and facilitate the laundering of money. This money either comes into the US financial system untaxed and/or used for illegal activities. Requiring companies to disclose their beneficial ownership will help fight money laundering and help law enforcement investigate and prosecute financial crimes, and won’t be an onerous burden that deters law-abiding people from founding new LLCs.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Thelma's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    If you prefer democracy and freedom, you must eradicate shell companies that allow the ultra-rich to hide their money and use it against those of us who do the work. Watch “Laundromat” to see what this will mean.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    ReaderOfThePack's Public Comment
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Small business don’t need shell companies to run their business unless their business is to hide and move money to avoid taxes. I can see that there could be problems with privacy concerns, but overall I think it’s better to prevent money laundering and using real estate as a shadowy way to avoid paying taxes or bringing income into the light of day.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Annette's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/23/2019
    You can't open a bank account without several layers of identity confirmation. Heck, my brother can't even deposit cash into my account. The standards for starting a new business should be no lower.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Gregory's Opinion Against
    ···
    10/22/2019
    More bills from the do nothing socialist democrats that just bloat the federal government. Drain the swamp and lets not make it any larger. Winning 2020
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    DumbocratsSUCK's Opinion Against
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Always vote NO on the greasy slime dumbocrat bills!!!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Rebekah 's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Enough legalized corruption aided by both parties! Candidates who refuse corporate bribery are well supported and loved by their constituents. Bernie has proven that putting people first brings him the highest number of donations by far. You can do this!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Celia's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    10/22/2019
    Absolutely. Shell companies are created by entities with something to hide, whether it is money for tax evasion, illegal business dealings, mistresses or kept men. Stop giving people cover for behavior they know to be questionable, if not outright wrong.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE