PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · May 14, 2019
Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act
This bill establishes in the Department of the Treasury the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program. The program may provide rewards to individuals furnishing information leading to the restraining, seizure, forfeiture, or repatriation of stolen assets linked to foreign government corruption.
A person is ineligible for a reward if they are an officer or employee of a federal, state, local, or foreign government and furnish such information in the course of their official duties. A person may be ineligible if Treasury reasonably believes that such person knowingly participated in certain forms of government corruption.
The bill provides for the administration of the program, including reward payment and eligibility.
Rewards must, to the extent possible, be paid first from any recovered assets.
Treasury must obtain approval from the Department of Justice before paying a reward under this Act in a matter where there is federal criminal jurisdiction.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3764-3766)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3764-3766)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 389.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3764-3767)
Ms. Waters moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 38.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 116-60.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 116-60.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 28, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.389 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.389 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.389 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.389 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.