PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 28, 2016
Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act
This bill establishes in the Department of the Treasury a Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program for the payment of rewards to support U.S. government programs and investigations aimed at eliminating from accounts at U.S. financial institutions any stolen assets linked to foreign government corruption and the proceeds of such corruption.
Treasury may pay a reward to any individual who furnishes information leading to the restraining, seizure, forfeiture, or repatriation of stolen assets in an account at a U.S. financial institution, that come within the United States, or that come within the possession or control of any U.S. person linked to foreign government corruption. U.S. or foreign government employees are not eligible for such a reward.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Treasury shall: (1) establish procedures for the offering, administration, and payment of such rewards in order to ensure that the payment of rewards pursuant to this bill does not duplicate or interfere with any other payment authorized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other federal law enforcement agencies for the obtaining of information or other evidence; and (2) obtain the written concurrence of DOJ before making such a reward under this bill in a matter over which there is federal criminal jurisdiction.
Such rewards shall be paid from the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
The total amount of rewards paid may not exceed $25 million in any calendar year. The President may waive such limitation after providing prior notice to Congress.
No single reward may exceed $5 million, except as Treasury determines necessary in exceptional cases. Treasury may reduce or deny awards to individuals claiming awards who were involved in actions leading to the misappropriation or diversion of stolen assets or other foreign government corruption.
Treasury shall: (1) report annually regarding stolen assets, and (2) report describing policy choices for the disposition of recovered stolen assets.
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.
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: Aug 12, 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.5603 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.5603 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.5603 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.5603 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.