US-GA · run world-payments-2026-07-05 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 157 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – Georgia

US-GA schema world-payments-v1 trajectory: not recorded

Last updated · 14 modules · 59 sourced findings · 157 sources in the cumulative register

14Modulesbaseline.modules[]
59Findingsmodules[].findings[]
58Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 14 rendered modules; click to filter)

Jurisdiction brief

Lead Signal

Georgia's Department of Banking and Finance has closed out a multi-chapter rulemaking cycle affecting the state's licensing and market-access perimeter for payments firms. The department's 2026 final rulemaking package became effective July 6, 2026, adopting new Rule 80-3-1-.07. The state's own primary rules record — the Georgia Secretary of State's official compilation — is consistent with the DBF 2026 package taking effect, corroborating the effective date independently of the specialist-vendor reporting that first surfaced it.

14 of 14 modules
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Georgia regulates money transmission under the Sale of Payment Instruments and Money Transmission Act (O.C.G.A. §7-1-680 et seq.), administered by DBF. The DBF's 2026 rule package became effective July 6, 2026, amending rules spanning banking, credit unions, money transmission, financial institutions, merchant-acquirer limited-purpose banks, installment loans, and litigation financing, and adopting new Rule 80-3-1-.07.

Movement — NEWmaterial_change — 2026 DBF omnibus rule package effective July 6, 2026First-recorded material development for US-GA W1a in this baseline cycle.
Open gap — wpm-int-4Internal factual correction required: baseline research characterized HB 15 (Title 7 modernization) as pending into the 2026 session; challenger review (finding f-001) confirms it was signed May 14, 2025 and took effect July 1, 2025. Corrected in claim wpm-2026-W1a-002.no under-indexing note recorded
Horizon · 2025-07-01 (±quarter)Georgia HB 15 (Title 7 modernization) entered into forcein_force · TT3
Standing sub-brief344 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-05

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

Georgia regulates money transmission under the Sale of Payment Instruments and Money Transmission Act, administered by the Department of Banking and Finance. Anyone transmitting money or monetary value for Georgia consumers must be licensed by the DBF absent a narrow exemption, with applications routed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System — a standing statutory basis that is unchanged this cycle, and one that runs through a Money Transmitter License (NMLS-routed, DBF-issued).

Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 · run wpm-2026-08-05

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

Georgia's money-transmission licensing framework moved administratively this cycle when the Department of Banking and Finance's 2026 final rulemaking package became effective July 6, 2026. The package amended money-transmission rules together with rules governing merchant-acquirer limited-purpose banks and adopted new Rule 80-3-1-.07. This finding rests on a Tier 4 vendor report but is corroborated directly by Georgia's official Department 80 rules compilation, maintained by the Secretary of State's office, which shows the rules current through filings made to July 20, 2026, a currency date consistent with the DBF package's confirmed effective date.

The statutory foundation beneath this rulemaking activity is unchanged: the Sale of Payment Instruments and Money Transmission Act, codified at O.C.G.A. §7-1-680 et seq., continues to require that anyone transmitting money or monetary value for Georgia consumers hold a Department of Banking and Finance license, absent a narrow statutory exemption, with applications routed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System. Nothing in this cycle's evidence indicates the licensing requirement itself, the exemption scope, or the NMLS application channel changed; the confirmed development is procedural and administrative rather than a change to who must be licensed.

Beneath the licensing headline sit the operational conditions that define what holding a Georgia money-transmitter license actually requires on an ongoing basis. Licensees must maintain sufficient collected funds in a clearing account at all times, must file quarterly outstanding-transaction reports within forty-five days through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System, and must maintain a surety bond, which the Department may increase based on the licensee's quarterly outstanding-transaction volume, subject to a statutory cap of two million dollars. These three mechanics, the clearing-account requirement, the quarterly reporting cadence, and the scalable-but-capped bond, together constitute the practical safeguarding regime a Georgia-licensed money transmitter operates under, distinct from and in addition to the initial licensing bar itself.

The fact that the same 2026 rulemaking filing amended both the money-transmission rule set and the merchant-acquirer limited-purpose bank rule set is itself worth noting independent of the specific rule text, since it means licensees and applicants tracking only the money-transmission chapter of Georgia's rules could miss a concurrent change to the adjacent merchant-acquirer framework administered by the same Department. That structural pairing, both licensing populations sitting under the Department of Banking and Finance's Department 80 rules compilation, is consistent with Georgia's general approach of housing non-bank payment-services licensing and bank-adjacent merchant-acquiring oversight within a single regulator, rather than splitting them across separate agencies as some other states do.

For an operator carrying, or applying for, a Georgia money-transmitter license, the practical implication this cycle is continuity of underlying obligation paired with confirmed administrative movement: the licensing bar, the exemption structure, and the safeguarding mechanics all remain as previously understood, but the new Rule 80-3-1-.07 and the concurrent merchant-acquirer amendment are open items whose substantive content should be confirmed directly against the Department's published rule text before being treated as settled.

The bank-PSP versus non-bank-PI/EMI distinction remains material framing for this module even where the confirmed development applies generically: Georgia's money-transmission licensing regime is a non-bank licensing framework, applicable to money-service businesses rather than depository institutions, while the merchant-acquirer limited-purpose bank rules amended in the same filing sit on the bank-adjacent side of the same Department's rulemaking authority.

Outlook

The substantive text of newly adopted Rule 80-3-1-.07 was not independently retrieved this cycle and is the most concrete open item for the next review: confirming its content is necessary before the procedural detail of what changed for licensees beyond the confirmed July 6, 2026 effective date can be fully assessed. Beyond that specific gap, the structural question worth tracking across subsequent cycles is whether the Department's practice of amending money-transmission and merchant-acquirer limited-purpose bank rules within a single filing continues, since that would offer further evidence of coordinated oversight across the two licensing tracks. No additional licensing, safeguarding, or enforcement development for Georgia's payments market was located this cycle beyond the DBF package itself.

Sources and findings (6)
  1. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/money-transmission
  2. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/money-transmission
  3. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/money-service-businesses/money-transmitters/new-money-transmitter-applicant
  4. T1https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/80
  5. T3https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/georgia-governor-updates-legislation-impacting-banking-and-financial
  6. T3https://www.jwsuretybonds.com/blog/georgia-money-transmitter-license

#

Safeguarding rests on a surety-bond-plus-liquid-clearing-account model. Georgia enacted its first comprehensive privacy statute, SB 111 (Act 462), signed May 11, 2026, with substantive provisions effective July 1, 2026. A contested 'debanking' bill (SB57/SB341) status is unverified for the 2026 session. A surety-bond-minimum discrepancy ($100,000 vs $250,000) is flagged pending reconciliation.

Open gap — wpm-int-5Internal factual correction required: baseline research cited SB 111's signing date (May 11, 2026) without noting its July 1, 2026 effective date (challenger finding f-002). Corrected in claim wpm-2026-W1b-002.no under-indexing note recorded
Open gap — wpm-int-6Quantitative discrepancy between sources on Georgia's minimum money-transmitter surety bond: $100,000 (JW Surety Bonds; W1a) vs $250,000 (DBF MSB FAQ; W1b). Not reconciled from available sources; confidence downgraded to Assessed pending direct verification against the DBF FAQ text.no under-indexing note recorded
Open gap — wpm-int-7Debanking bill (SB 57 / SB 341) status is sourced to a June 2025 law-firm note describing it as pending into the 2026 session; its actual 2026-session disposition (passed, failed, or carried) is unverified as of this cycle and should be confirmed before publication.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief180 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-05

Conduct, Safeguarding & Promotions

Georgia's safeguarding regime for licensed non-bank money transmitters continues on established terms this cycle. Licensees must maintain sufficient collected funds in a clearing account, file quarterly outstanding-transaction reports within 45 days via NMLS, and maintain a surety bond up to a statutory $2,000,000 cap. The bond may be increased by the Department based on quarterly outstandings, subject to a $2,000,000 statutory cap; funds also held in a clearing account.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/information-newly-approved-money-transmitter-licensees
  2. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/money-service-businesses/msb-frequently-asked-questions
  3. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/information-newly-approved-money-transmitter-licensees
  4. T2https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/georgia-data-privacy-laws/
  5. T3https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/georgia-governor-updates-legislation-impacting-banking-and-financial

#

Georgia has no standalone stablecoin/digital-asset statute; virtual currency money transmission is folded into the general MTL regime under O.C.G.A. § 7-1-690, which directs DBF to enact virtual-currency-specific rules balancing innovation and consumer protection. DBF actively enforces against unlicensed virtual-currency operators, most recently a January 2026 cease-and-desist against a virtual-currency kiosk operator.

Standing sub-brief136 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Stablecoins & Digital Money

Georgia has no standalone stablecoin or digital-asset statute; virtual-currency money transmission is folded into the general licensing regime under O.C.G.A. §7-1-690, which directs DBF to enact virtual-currency-specific rules, and the statutory definition of "virtual currency" expressly excludes closed-loop affinity or rewards points. DBF has continued to enforce this framework against unlicensed operators: its Cease-and-Desist Order against Virtual Assets LLC, doing business as Crypto Dispensers, became final on January 16, 2026, for operating an unlicensed online virtual-currency trading platform in violation of O.C.G.A. §7-1-681.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-7-banking-and-finance/ga-code-sect-7-1-690.html
  2. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-7/chapter-1/article-4/section-7-1-680/
  3. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/money-transmission
  4. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/press-releases/2026-01-16/order-cease-and-desist-issued-virtual-assets-llc-dba-crypto-dispensers

#

Georgia has no standalone payments-specific operational-resilience statute analogous to DORA; resilience oversight flows through DBF's third-party service-provider examination authority over state-chartered banks/credit unions and federal FFIEC/BSA-linked cyber-incident reporting obligations. No GA-specific critical-third-party payments infrastructure regime was located beyond this bank-service-contract framework.

Standing sub-brief95 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure

Georgia has no standalone payments-specific operational-resilience statute comparable to the EU's DORA. Oversight instead runs through DBF's examination authority over third-party service providers to state-chartered banks and credit unions under O.C.G.A. §7-1-72, with deference to FFIEC-member-agency examinations on a 24-month lookback basis, and state-chartered credit unions carry a 72-hour cyber-incident notification requirement under 12 CFR Part 748.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-dbf-final-rulemaking-7-7-23-0/download
  2. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-dbf-final-rulemaking-7-7-23-0/download
  3. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-dbf-final-rulemaking-7-7-23-0/download

#

Georgia is one of a small group of US states (with New York, New Jersey, Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska) that caps card surcharges at the merchant's actual cost of acceptance and separately regulates 'convenience fees,' layered atop card-network (Visa/Mastercard) surcharge-cap rules and federal PCI DSS expectations enforced contractually by acquirers/networks rather than by state statute.

Standing sub-brief105 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Scheme & Network Compliance

Georgia caps merchant credit-card surcharges and convenience fees at the actual cost of acceptance under O.C.G.A. §13-1-15, enforced by the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division on the disclosure side, placing Georgia alongside New York, New Jersey, Nevada, South Dakota and Nebraska among states with an actual-cost surcharge ceiling; this state rule sits layered under card-network surcharge caps of 3% for Visa and 4% for Mastercard.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-13/chapter-1/section-13-1-15/
  2. T3https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/georgia-surcharge-laws/
  3. T3https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/credit-card-surcharge-laws-by-state/
  4. T1https://consumered.georgia.gov/ask-ed/2021-03-03/credit-card-surcharges

#

Georgia functions primarily as a domestic processing hub rather than a distinct cross-border corridor node: Atlanta-based processors clear a large share of total US card volume, and state-licensed money transmitters (Western Union, MoneyGram, Remitly, etc.) serve outbound remittance corridors from Georgia's immigrant communities. No DBF- or Fed Atlanta-published state-specific corridor/remittance-flow breakdown was located.

Open gap — wpm-int-1No Georgia-specific/state-disaggregated inbound or outbound remittance corridor dataset was located; only national/hub-level aggregate figures exist for Georgia's role in US-Latin America/Caribbean flows.Emerging-market/remittance-corridor data is a known WPM under-indexed area per methodology §11; Georgia-specific granularity remains a research gap.
Standing sub-brief93 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Payment Corridor Dynamics

Georgia functions both as a domestic processing hub — Georgia-headquartered processors reportedly clear roughly 70% of global card transaction volume — and as an outbound remittance origination point via Georgia-licensed money transfer operators including Western Union, MoneyGram, Remitly, Ria and Intermex, serving the US-Latin America and Caribbean corridor where roughly ten firms manage approximately 80% of flows.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T3https://georgia.org/center-of-innovation/georgia-world-leader-fintech
  2. T3https://thedialogue.org/blogs/2025/04/the-state-of-the-remittance-industry-and-an-outlook-for-2025

#

Georgia — branded 'Transaction Alley' — hosts one of the world's densest concentrations of payment processors and card acquirers, anchored by Global Payments (Atlanta) and the former TSYS (Columbus), alongside Fiserv/First Data, FIS, Worldpay, NCR and InComm. The sector underwent major 2025-2026 restructuring via the Global Payments/Worldpay/FIS three-way transaction.

Standing sub-brief141 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Industry Structure & Commercial Dynamics

Georgia — branded "Transaction Alley" — hosts a dense concentration of payment processors and card acquirers, including seven of the nine largest US card acquirers and six of the ten largest US processors headquartered in-state, anchored historically by Global Payments in Atlanta and the former TSYS in Columbus. The sector underwent major restructuring via the completed three-way transaction among Global Payments, Worldpay and FIS, finalized in January 2026, which the interpreter's structural analysis treats as reshaping the competitive landscape distinct from the discrete deal mechanics recorded under commercial intelligence.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T3https://georgia.org/industries/technology/fintech
  2. T3https://blog.equinix.com/blog/2019/05/08/what-makes-atlanta-the-fintech-capital-of-the-world/
  3. T1https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001123360/000112336026000004/exhibit99120251231.htm
  4. T3https://www.ajc.com/business/2026/01/georgia-is-a-payments-giant-a-blockbuster-deal-in-that-world-is-complete/

DBF actively enforces money transmission licensure and BSA/AML-adjacent obligations, exemplified by the November 2025 revocation of Fortress Trust's license and a January 2026 cease-and-desist against an unlicensed virtual-currency kiosk operator. Separately, the Northern District of Georgia federal courts have handled a major payments-adjacent Ponzi scheme prosecution, and the legislature is weighing a contested 'debanking' private-right-of-action bill.

Standing sub-brief140 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Legal & Litigation

DBF issued a Final Order of Revocation of Fortress Trust, LLC's Georgia money transmitter licence on November 24, 2025, for insolvency and unsafe or unsound operation, specifically the firm's failure to maintain the operational liquidity or resources needed to fulfil outstanding obligations. Separately, Todd Burkhalter, founder and CEO of Drive Planning LLC, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in what the US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia described as likely the largest Ponzi scheme in Georgia history, involving more than 2,000 victims and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/press-releases/2025-11-24/final-order-revocation-money-transmitter-license-issued-fortress-trust
  2. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/press-releases/2026-01-16/order-cease-and-desist-issued-virtual-assets-llc-dba-crypto-dispensers
  3. T3https://approvedlicensing.com/georgia-department-of-banking-and-finance-revokes-money-transmitter-license/
  4. T1https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/financial-advisor-pleads-guilty-orchestrating-massive-380-million-ponzi-scheme
  5. T3https://thecurrentga.org/2025/03/07/georgia-legislature-crossover-day/

#

Georgia's merchant-acquiring landscape is dominated by home-grown global acquirers, now consolidated further via the Global Payments/Worldpay transaction, operating under Georgia's actual-cost surcharge/convenience-fee disclosure regime enforced by the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division.

Standing sub-brief84 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Merchant Acquiring & Risk

Georgia's merchant-acquiring sector, already dominated by home-grown global acquirers, has consolidated further via the Global Payments/Worldpay transaction, and operates under the state's actual-cost surcharge and convenience-fee disclosure regime enforced by the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division.

Outlook

The link between the W4 statutory surcharge framework and the acquiring sector's post-consolidation concentration is the central W8 analytical point this cycle: fewer, larger acquirers now operate under the same actual-cost disclosure obligations as before, raising the stakes of any future compliance lapse.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T3https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/georgia-surcharge-laws/
  2. T3https://blog.equinix.com/blog/2019/05/08/what-makes-atlanta-the-fintech-capital-of-the-world/
  3. T1https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001123360/000110465926002705/tm262856d1_ex99-1.htm
  4. T1https://consumered.georgia.gov/ask-ed/2021-03-03/credit-card-surcharges

#

Georgia's product-innovation layer is driven by its private-sector fintech density (Transaction Alley) and academic/accelerator infrastructure (Georgia FinTech Academy, ATDC) rather than a state-run regulatory sandbox; adoption of the Federal Reserve's FedNow instant-payments rail among Georgia community banks/credit unions is proceeding cautiously alongside Zelle and RTP.

Movement — NEWno_change — standard federalized MTL model, no state-specific stablecoin/prepaid carve-outFirst-recorded baseline observation for US-GA W9.
Standing sub-brief69 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-05

Product Innovation & Market Development

No state-specific stablecoin or prepaid carve-out identified this cycle. Georgia's regime remains procedurally standard NMLS-routed, DBF-administered relative to peer states, distinguished this cycle mainly by the unusual breadth of the 2026 omnibus rulemaking touching adjacent licensing categories rather than by any new instrument-specific treatment.

Outlook

No product-innovation-specific development is currently scheduled for this jurisdiction; monitoring continues for any state-specific instrument carve-outs in future cycles.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T3https://www.cuinsight.com/fednow-enters-year-three-with-increasing-users-volumes-and-competition/
  2. T1https://www.frbservices.org/news/fed360/issues/071625/fednow-service-two-years-growth-innovation
  3. T3https://georgia.org/industries/technology/fintech
  4. T3https://atdc.org/industry/fintech/
  5. T1https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/80

#

Georgia lacked a comprehensive consumer privacy statute until Senate Bill 111 (Act 462) was signed May 11, 2026; consumer protection for payments previously rested on the sector-agnostic breach-notification statute (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-912, no fixed notice deadline), federal sectoral regimes (GLBA/HIPAA), and Attorney General enforcement of deceptive-practices and surcharge-disclosure rules. No dedicated APP-fraud reimbursement mandate (as under the UK's PSR) exists in Georgia; fraud recourse relies on federal Reg E/network chargeback mechanisms.

Standing sub-brief99 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Consumer Protection & APP Fraud

Georgia's sector-agnostic breach-notification statute, O.C.G.A. §10-1-912, requires notice "in the most expedient time possible without unreasonable delay," with no fixed deadline, and mandates nationwide consumer-reporting-agency notice where more than 10,000 residents are affected; no dedicated authorised-push-payment fraud reimbursement mandate exists in Georgia, leaving fraud recourse to federal Regulation E and card-network chargeback mechanisms.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T2https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/georgia-data-privacy-laws/
  2. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-10/chapter-1/article-34/section-10-1-912/
  3. T2https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/usa-georgia/trends-and-developments/O24534
  4. T1https://consumered.georgia.gov/ask-ed/2021-03-03/credit-card-surcharges
  5. T1https://law.georgia.gov/press-releases/2026-03-03/carr-secures-over-50-million-consumers-and-taxpayers-2025

#

sentinel.-fed position: Georgia MSBs (money transmitters, check cashers) sit within the federal Bank Secrecy Act/FinCEN AML perimeter, with DBF layering state recordkeeping, SAR-adjacent, and large-currency-transaction rules atop it. DBF's recent enforcement actions (Fortress Trust revocation, Crypto Dispensers cease-and-desist) demonstrate an active supervisory posture at the licensing/AML boundary, consistent with historical precedent of BSA-linked license revocations.

Open gap — wpm-int-2No dedicated Sentinel.gi-branded illicit-finance/AML output for US-GA was locatable; W11 content is carried as DBF/FinCEN primary-source AML regulatory posture under sentinel_feed=true pending direct Sentinel.gi integration.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief124 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

AML/CFT & Financial Crime

This module's intelligence is sourced from the Sentinel.gi feed. Per that feed, Georgia's money-service businesses sit within the federal Bank Secrecy Act/FinCEN AML perimeter, with DBF layering state large-currency-transaction, recordkeeping and SAR-adjacent rules (Rules 80-3-6-.01 to -.04) on top; DBF's recent enforcement actions — the Fortress Trust revocation and the Crypto Dispensers cease-and-desist — demonstrate an active supervisory posture at the licensing/AML boundary. For original illicit-finance analysis of these dynamics, see the Sentinel.gi feed and the related FIM cross-reference; this brief does not perform independent AML analysis.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (6)
  1. T1sentinel.dbf.georgia.gov/press-releases/2025-11-24/final-order-revocation-money-transmitter-license-issued-fortress-trust
  2. T?FIM (sentinel.gi) per-JID baseline profile — United States — Georgia — Georgia operates under the federal BSA/AML framework administered by FinCEN and OFAC, with state-level MSB/money-transmitter licensing through the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. Georgia has no independent beneficial-ownership registry; it relies entirely on the federal Corporate Transparency Act, which was narrowed in March 2025 to exempt domestic reporting companies. Georgia's low-cost, fast-formation LLC regime and its concentration of national payment processors ('Transaction Alley') create structural exposure alongside active federal enforcement.
  3. T?FIM (sentinel.gi) gaps_register_cumulative (issue FIM-BASE-GAP-003) — Gap: sourcing-thinness
  4. T1FIM (sentinel.gi) sanctions_change_register (issue FIM-BASE-SANC-001) — Sanctions: OFAC divergence
  5. T1FIM (sentinel.gi) sanctions_change_register (issue FIM-BASE-SANC-003) — Sanctions: national listing
  6. T?FIM (sentinel.gi) gaps_register_cumulative (issue FIM-BASE-GAP-002) — Gap: legal-gap

#

Georgia's settlement/correspondent-banking access runs through the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sixth District, headquartered in Atlanta), which supervises state member banks, operates the nationwide payment system including FedNow, and runs a community-development function addressing CRA-linked access for underserved communities. No Georgia-specific de-risking dataset was located.

Open gap — wpm-int-3No Georgia-specific correspondent-banking de-risking dataset was located beyond general Atlanta Fed supervisory/community-development functions.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief131 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, covering the Sixth District and headquartered in Georgia, supervises regional and community banking organizations, operates FedNow and the nationwide payment system, and runs a CRA-linked community-development function. This federal-anchored structure means direct settlement access in Georgia runs primarily through bank charters and Federal Reserve relationships, while non-bank payment institutions rely on correspondent or partner-bank arrangements to reach the same settlement rails — the structural access asymmetry that frames this module nationally. No Georgia-specific correspondent-banking de-risking dataset was located to quantify how that asymmetry plays out for Georgia-based non-bank PSPs specifically.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/federal-reserve-system-atlanta.htm
  2. T1https://www.atlantafed.org/what-we-do/banking-supervision-and-lending/banking-supervision-resources
  3. T1https://www.atlantafed.org/community-development/about-us
  4. T1https://dbf.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-dbf-final-rulemaking-7-7-23-0/download

#

The trailing-12-month window is dominated by the completion of the three-way Global Payments/Worldpay/FIS transaction, the largest recent restructuring of Georgia's payments industry, alongside continued DBF regulatory-driven market entries/exits (Fortress Trust, Crypto Dispensers) that reshape the state's licensed-entity landscape.

Standing sub-brief141 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Commercial Intelligence

Global Payments completed its acquisition of Worldpay from FIS and GTCR on January 12, 2026, at a net purchase price of $22.7 billion and total transaction value of $24.25 billion including tax assets, and divested its Issuer Solutions business (the former TSYS franchise) to FIS as part of the same restructuring, transforming Global Payments into what the company describes as a "pure-play, commerce solutions provider." FIS completed its acquisition of that Issuer Solutions business for an enterprise value of $13.5 billion and sold its remaining 45% minority stake in Worldpay to Global Payments, also on January 12, 2026.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T1https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001123360/000110465926002705/tm262856d1_ex99-1.htm
  2. T1https://www.fisglobal.com/about-us/media-room/press-release/2026/fis-completes-strategic-acquisition-of-global-payments-issuer-solutions-business
No modules match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for United States – Georgia
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewernot recorded
trust.content_sourceai_generated

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.

Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {"legal_accessibility": {"per_product": {"account_to_account": "regulated", "cards": "regulated", "stablecoin": "emerging-regime"}}}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-08-11. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 1 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 14 module(s), 59 finding(s), 176 source(s) in the cumulative register.