US-SC · run world-payments-2026-07-05 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 129 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – South Carolina

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

Last updated · 14 modules · 52 sourced findings · 129 sources in the cumulative register

14Modulesbaseline.modules[]
52Findingsmodules[].findings[]
46Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 14 rendered modules; click to filter)

Jurisdiction brief

Lead Signal

South Carolina has moved decisively on digital-asset policy in 2026, establishing a comprehensive legislative baseline that positions the state as an increasingly crypto-friendly jurisdiction. S.163 bars state governing authorities from accepting or requiring CBDC payments or participating in federal CBDC pilots, protects self-custody rights, and excludes privately issued asset-backed stablecoins from the CBDC definition. The law was ratified May 14, 2026 and signed by Governor McMaster. A Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act, Bill 4256, would let the state Treasurer invest unencumbered state funds in digital assets including Bitcoin, capped at 1 million BTC and 3% of the state's digital-asset investment portfolio, subject to independent annual custody audits; it remains in the Ways and Means committee. A separate bill, 4592, would require virtual-currency-kiosk operators to hold a money transmitter licence and provide on-screen fraud disclosures; it has not yet been enacted. At the federal level, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by South Carolina's Senator Tim Scott, voted 15-9 on May 14, 2026 to advance the CLARITY Act. The bill missed its July 4, 2026 Senate floor target amid unresolved disputes over stablecoin yield and conflict-of-interest provisions. Absent a state-specific stablecoin-issuer regime, South Carolina-domiciled issuers and banks operate under the federal GENIUS Act framework, signed into law July 18, 2025. This digital-asset legislative program constitutes the most material payments-policy development of the baseline window, positioning South Carolina as an increasingly crypto-friendly jurisdiction absent a state-level stablecoin-issuer authorisation regime.

14 of 14 modules
Signal
Density

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

#

South Carolina licenses and regulates money transmitters and currency exchangers under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act (Title 35, Chapter 11), administered by the Money Services Division within the Office of the Attorney General. 2024 Act No. 218 adopted the MTMA model law, streamlining net-worth, surety-bond, and permissible-investment standards and enabling multistate licensing reciprocity. A pending 2025-2026 bill (H.4251) would add a fee/suspension mechanism funding the state's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit.

Movement — CHANGED2024 MTMA adoption + S.163 licensing exemption + H.4251/H.4592 pendingMultiple new licensing-related findings this cycle.
Open gap — wpm-int-7Enactment status of the Vending of Digital Assets Act (Bill 4592, virtual-currency-kiosk licensing) remains pending in House committee.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief186 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-06

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

South Carolina licenses and regulates money transmitters and currency-exchange institutions under the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act, administered by the Attorney General's Money Services Division rather than a banking regulator. The 2024 modernization, Act No. 218, substantially adopted the multistate Money Transmission Modernization Act model law, raising licence fees to $1,600 and updating net worth, surety bond, permissible investment and control-definition provisions. This MTMA harmonisation reduces multistate licensing friction for transmitters operating across state lines.

Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 · run wpm-2026-08-06

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

South Carolina's non-bank money-transmission licensing regime completed a structural modernisation step in 2024, with knock-on legislative activity continuing into the current 2025-2026 session. 2024 Act No. 218 formally substituted the chapter's short title from the South Carolina Anti-Money Laundering Act to the South Carolina Uniform Money Services Act and adopted Money Transmission Modernization Act provisions, effective 2024-07-02, aligning South Carolina with the multistate model-law approach that other adopting states use to streamline licensing reciprocity and examination-sharing arrangements. Under that framework, annual licence renewal requires proof of minimum net worth of $250,000 and maintenance of adequate security and permissible investments, and licensees must file a quarterly Money Services Call Report through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System within forty-five days of quarter-end, alongside quarterly authorized-delegate adjustment reporting through the system's UAAR function.

Two pending 2025-2026 bills would each add to this licensing base in different ways. H.4251, introduced March 27, 2025 and pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, would add a new Section 35-11-240 imposing fees on certain money transfers, with proceeds directed to the state's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund, and would attach a licence-suspension and reapplication bar together with a surety-bond claim mechanism; no forward effective date has been established. Separately, South Carolina's digital-asset law exempts blockchain-protocol software development, node operation, and crypto-to-crypto exchange, without conversion to legal tender or bank deposits, from money-transmitter licensing under the same Title 35, Chapter 11 framework, narrowing the licensing perimeter for that specific category of non-bank digital-asset activity. A third pending bill, H.4592, would move in the opposite direction for virtual-currency kiosks specifically, requiring kiosk owners and operators to obtain a money-transmitter licence, and remains pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee with no recorded vote.

Every measure addressed here attaches to non-bank money-services licensees under South Carolina's Uniform Money Services Act; none of this cycle's developments alter the treatment of depository institutions, which are licensed and supervised outside this state money-transmission framework.

Outlook

Watch for committee votes on H.4251 and H.4592, either of which would be the next concrete change to South Carolina's licensing perimeter. H.4251's fee-and-suspension mechanism and its immigration-enforcement funding rationale is a novel policy attachment for a money-transmission statute and merits tracking independent of its prudential content; H.4592's kiosk-licensing requirement would be the state's first licensing regime specific to virtual-currency conversion points.

Sources and findings (7)
  1. T1https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/
  2. T1https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/
  3. T3https://moneytransmitterlaw.com/state-laws/south-carolina/retrieved
  4. T3https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-licenseretrieved
  5. T1https://banking.sc.gov/retrieved
  6. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htmretrieved
  7. T3https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entailretrieved

#

Safeguarding for SC-licensed money transmitters rests on a surety-bond/net-worth regime rather than segregation-of-funds trust. Conduct/promotions rules are emerging fastest around VC kiosks via pending Bill 4592.

Standing sub-brief143 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Conduct, Safeguarding & Financial Promotions

South Carolina money transmitters must maintain a surety bond of $50,000 plus $10,000 per additional office, capped at $250,000, and a net worth of at least $250,000. The state does not separately mandate a customer-fund segregation or trust model, leaving safeguarding resting on solvency-style capital requirements rather than fund segregation.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T3https://www.bondexchange.com/south-carolina-money-transmitter-bond-a-comprehensive-guide/retrieved
  2. T3https://www.natlawreview.com/article/south-carolina-latest-state-to-implement-money-transmitter-licensing-laws-and
  3. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4592.htm
  4. T1https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/
  5. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/1230.htm

#

S.163, signed by Governor McMaster May 19, 2026, bars SC governmental entities from accepting/requiring payment via, or participating in a test of, a Central Bank Digital Currency, and protects individual/business rights to use digital currency for transactions and self-custody.

Movement — NEWLY_SCOPEDS.163 CBDC prohibition and digital-currency rights protectionsFirst-time population of the W2 module for this JID.
Open gap — wpm-int-6Enactment status of the Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act (Bill 4256) remains pending; still in Ways and Means committee as of the baseline window.no under-indexing note recorded
Horizon · 2026-Q3 (±half_year)CLARITY Act revised Senate floor voteproposed · TT3
Standing sub-brief235 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Stablecoins & Digital Money

South Carolina enacted S.163, ratified May 14, 2026 and signed by Governor McMaster, barring state governing authorities from accepting or requiring CBDC payments or participating in federal CBDC pilots. The law protects self-custody rights and excludes privately issued asset-backed stablecoins from the CBDC definition, positioning the state as increasingly crypto-friendly.

A pending bill, the Strategic Digital Assets Reserve Act (Bill 4256), introduced March 27, 2025, would let the State Treasurer invest unencumbered state funds in digital assets including Bitcoin, capped at 1 million BTC and 3% of the state's digital-asset investment portfolio, subject to independent annual custody audits. It remains in the Ways and Means committee and has not been enacted.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

#

SC has no payments-specific operational-resilience/critical-infrastructure regime akin to DORA. Applicable standing framework is the general breach-notification statute (since 2009) and the Insurance Data Security Act, layered under federal GLBA/FFIEC expectations for banks.

Open gap — wpm-int-1No dedicated SC payments-specific operational-resilience/critical-infrastructure statute (DORA-equivalent) identified; general breach-notification and insurance-data-security regimes apply instead.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief113 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure

South Carolina has no payments-specific operational-resilience or critical-infrastructure statute comparable to the EU's DORA in force. The applicable standing framework is the state's general data-breach notification statute, in force since 2009. A related standing framework, the South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act, effective January 1, 2019, requires licensees to notify the Director no later than 72 hours after determining a cybersecurity event meeting materiality thresholds, modeled on the NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-39/chapter-1/section-39-1-90/retrieved
  2. T3https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/south-carolina-data-privacy-laws/data-breach-notification/retrieved
  3. T1https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/reporting-security-breach-businessesretrieved
  4. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t38c099.phpretrieved
  5. T3https://sentra.io/learn/south-carolina-data-breach-notification-law-requirementsretrieved

#

No SC interchange/surcharge statute in force; federal Durbin Amendment debit-interchange cap, Expressions Hair Design surcharge jurisprudence and scheme rules govern. SC's own scheme-adjacent statute is the criminal Financial Transaction Card Crime Act.

Open gap — wpm-int-2No SC-specific card-interchange or surcharge statute identified; federal Durbin Amendment and scheme rules form the default framework.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief100 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Scheme & Network Compliance

South Carolina has no state-specific card-interchange or surcharge statute in force; card-network compliance operates under the federal baseline, including the Durbin Amendment debit-interchange cap and the Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman surcharge-disclosure jurisprudence. The state's own scheme-adjacent statute, the Financial Transaction Card Crime Act, defines an 'acquirer' as authorizing merchants to accept card payments and criminalizes fraudulent submission of transaction records not resulting from an actual sale as a felony.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.phpretrieved
  2. T3https://ebizcharge.com/blog/credit-card-surcharge-a-state-by-state-legal-analysis/retrieved
  3. T3https://www.attorneytruslow.com/blog/2023/december/south-carolina-financial-transaction-card-crime-/retrieved

#

SC has no dedicated corridor/remittance policy distinct from its general money-transmitter regime. Cross-border flows channel via nationally licensed transmitters operating through SC-registered authorized delegates.

Open gap — wpm-int-3No SC-specific cross-border payment corridor or remittance policy distinct from the general MTL regime identified.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief78 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Payment Corridor Dynamics

Cross-border remittance flows through South Carolina are channeled via nationally licensed money transmitters, such as Western Union, operating through South Carolina-registered authorized delegates under the Uniform Money Services Act, with FinCEN MSB registration as the federal precondition. No South Carolina-specific corridor policy exists; corridor access rides on the general money-transmitter-licence and agent framework.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/money-services-faqs/retrieved
  2. T3https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-licenseretrieved
  3. T1https://www.scag.gov/inside-the-office/legal-services-division/money-services/retrieved

#

SC's banking structure is marked by heavy out-of-state deposit ownership and branch contraction, prompting a credit-union-led coalition seeking expanded public-deposit access. State is home to LPL Financial, SouthState, and the Carolina Fintech Hub ecosystem.

Standing sub-brief108 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Industry Structure & Commercial Dynamics

78% of all South Carolina bank deposits were held in out-of-state banks in 2023, alongside a net decrease of 233 bank branches statewide against a net increase of 24 credit union branches over the same period. South Carolina law bars local governments from depositing taxpayer funds in credit unions, confining public deposits to traditional banks. A coalition of credit unions and local governments, the Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition, is pushing to change that law, opposed by the SC Bankers Association.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (6)
  1. T3https://www.postandcourier.com/kingstree/community-news/palmetto-public-deposits-coalition-launches-to-strengthen-south-carolinas-financial-ecosystem/article_be4867ea-8cdd-11ef-b1ec-d78129377937.htmlretrieved
  2. T3https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/retrieved
  3. T3https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/retrieved
  4. T1https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/retrieved
  5. T3https://finovate.com/category/finovatespring-2026/retrieved
  6. T4https://www.carolinafintechhub.org/retrieved

SC's payments-adjacent enforcement activity centers on the AG's multistate coordination role, notably the 47-state $80M BSA/AML settlement with Block Inc. (Cash App), alongside historical CashCall/Western Sky consumer-lending settlements.

Standing sub-brief60 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Legal & Litigation

South Carolina's Attorney General joined a 47-state, $80 million multistate settlement with Block, Inc. over alleged BSA/AML program deficiencies tied to Cash App; Block also agreed to hire an independent compliance consultant.

Outlook

This settlement is the standing enforcement marker for the baseline window; further multistate coordinated actions against non-bank payment platforms are the pattern to monitor.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T3https://www.fitsnews.com/2025/01/22/s-c-attorney-general-joins-80-million-enforcement-action/
  2. T1https://consumer.sc.gov/business-resourceslaws/enforcement-actions

#

SC has a regulatory gap for merchant cash advance funders/brokers: no licensing, bonding, or registration requirement, unlike SC's regulated payday-lending regime.

Open gap — wpm-int-4No SC merchant cash advance licensing/registration regime exists; treated as not applicable within the current regulatory posture rather than a research gap.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief61 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Merchant Acquiring & Risk

No licensing, bonding, background-check, or registration requirement exists for merchant cash advance funders or brokers operating in South Carolina, in contrast to the state's regulated payday-lending regime.

Outlook

This gap is treated as not applicable within the current regulatory posture rather than a research shortfall; it remains a dated entry to monitor for any future legislative activity.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T4https://grantphillipslaw.com/merchant-cash-advance-attorney-south-carolina/retrieved
  2. T1https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c014.phpretrieved

#

SC community banks are adopting FedNow instant-payments infrastructure, mirroring the nationwide community-bank-heavy trend. Separately, S.163 is framed as a competitiveness play to attract crypto-friendly capital and businesses.

Standing sub-brief103 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Product Innovation & Market Development

Named South Carolina institutions live on FedNow include Bank of York, Dedicated Community Bank, and Security Federal Bank; nationally FedNow reached 1,400+ participants by July 2025, with community banks and credit unions comprising roughly 80% of participants. Separately, S.163 is framed as a competitiveness and innovation play intended to attract miners, blockchain operators and crypto-friendly capital to South Carolina, joining states like Kentucky in enacting self-custody and anti-discrimination protections.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T3https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednowretrieved
  2. T1https://www.frbservices.org/news/fed360/issues/071625/fednow-service-two-years-growth-innovationretrieved
  3. T3https://www.csiweb.com/what-to-know/content-hub/blog/exploring-the-fednow-service-and-instant-payments/retrieved
  4. T3https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/what-does-south-carolina-s-new-crypto-law-entailretrieved

#

Consumer payments protection runs through SCDCA under the SC Consumer Protection Code and SCUTPA, plus a 2021 elder-exploitation law. No SC-specific APP-fraud reimbursement mandate exists; reliance on federal Reg E and scheme zero-liability.

Open gap — wpm-int-5No SC-specific authorized-push-payment (APP) fraud mandatory reimbursement regime identified; reliance on federal Reg E / scheme zero-liability policies.no under-indexing note recorded
Standing sub-brief99 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-06

Consumer Protection & APP Fraud

South Carolina's 2021 elder financial exploitation law (S.425) allows financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, broker-dealers and investment advisers, to decline, delay, or report transactions suspected of financially exploiting vulnerable adults aged 55 and older, without requiring such action, and exempts good-faith actors from liability. No South Carolina-specific authorized-push-payment fraud mandatory reimbursement regime comparable to the UK's exists; reliance is on federal Regulation E and card-network zero-liability policies.

Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 · run wpm-2026-08-06

Consumer Protection & APP Fraud

South Carolina's one consumer-protection development this cycle targets a specific fraud vector rather than a general APP-fraud regime: cash-to-crypto conversion through virtual-currency kiosks. H.4592 would mandate a written risk disclosure and an on-screen anti-fraud warning statement for new customers of virtual-currency kiosks, with licence revocation as the penalty for a missing warning, alongside the underlying requirement that kiosk owners and operators hold a money-transmitter licence in the first place. The bill remains pending in the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee with no recorded committee vote as of this cycle.

The structure of the proposed remedy is notable: rather than a disclosure-only requirement, the bill ties the consumer-facing warning obligation directly to licensure, so that a licensee's failure to display the mandated warning becomes a licence-revocation event rather than a lesser civil penalty. That pairing of consumer disclosure with the licensing sanction itself is a stronger enforcement mechanism than a standalone disclosure mandate would be, though its practical effect depends on the bill advancing past committee. No enforcement action, guidance, or rule under this bill exists yet, since it has not been enacted; the current baseline for virtual-currency-kiosk customers in South Carolina remains whatever protections apply under general consumer law rather than a kiosk-specific regime.

Outlook

Watch for a committee vote on H.4592. If it advances, South Carolina would gain its first kiosk-specific consumer-protection regime for virtual-currency conversion points, combining a disclosure mandate with a licence-revocation penalty for non-compliance; if it stalls, as it has for the duration of this cycle, cash-to-crypto kiosk transactions in the state continue without a kiosk-specific warning or disclosure requirement.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T1https://www.scjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/08-Chapter-8-Consumer-Protection.pdfretrieved
  2. T1https://governor.sc.gov/news/2021-07/gov-henry-mcmaster-signs-bill-protect-vulnerable-adults-financial-exploitationretrieved
  3. T1https://www.richmondfed.org/banking/banker_resources/regulatory_perspectives/news_flash/2025/20250221_elderexploitretrieved
  4. T4https://hayscauley.net/consumer-rights-act-in-south-carolina-protecting-your-interests/retrieved
  5. T1https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/retrieved

#

Sentinel.gi payments-context position: SC money transmitters operate under the SC Anti-Money Laundering Act, requiring BSA/AML compliance and FinCEN MSB registration. Most material recent signal is SC's participation in the $80M multistate Block Inc. (Cash App) settlement.

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

AML/CFT & Financial Crime

This module's intelligence is sourced from the Sentinel.gi feed; original illicit-finance analysis is not re-performed here. All South Carolina money transmitters must be licensed under the South Carolina Anti-Money Laundering Act, with FinCEN MSB registration a precondition to state licensure. South Carolina participated in the 47-state, $80 million multistate settlement with Block, Inc. over BSA/AML program deficiencies tied to Cash App, which required an independent consultant review of AML program comprehensiveness.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1sentinel.https://cornerstonelicensing.com/money-transmitter-laws/south-carolina-ag-money-transmitter-regulations/
  2. T3sentinel.https://www.fitsnews.com/2025/01/22/s-c-attorney-general-joins-80-million-enforcement-action/
  3. T3sentinel.https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/blog/south-carolina-money-transmitter-license

#

SC's correspondent-banking landscape is defined by consolidation and a public-deposit rule confining government deposits to traditional banks, even as 78% of deposits sit in out-of-state institutions and rural branch closures strain local access.

Standing sub-brief77 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access

South Carolina's correspondent-access landscape is shaped by an asymmetry between bank and non-bank market participants. State law confines public deposits to traditional banks, excluding credit unions, even as 78% of South Carolina deposits sit in out-of-state institutions. Rural branch closures are straining local correspondent and settlement access.

Outlook

Correspondent-access strain is likely to intensify as deposit-market consolidation and rural branch contraction continue, keeping the public-deposit restriction a live point of political contest.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T3https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/retrieved
  2. T3https://scdailygazette.com/2024/10/17/new-coalition-says-rural-sc-towns-need-more-banking-options-banks-will-fight-it/retrieved
  3. T1https://banking.sc.gov/retrieved
  4. T3https://scbankers.org/regulatory/retrieved

#

Trailing-12-month commercial activity touching SC includes out-of-state bank expansion (Huntington, Carter Bankshares) and S.163's digital-asset legislative event. No SC-headquartered payments fintech M&A or funding event identified.

Open gap — wpm-int-8No SC-headquartered payments fintech M&A or venture-funding event identified in the trailing 12 months.Private-company/SC-native fintech deal flow is an under-indexed bias-correction category per methodology §11; absence here may reflect research-coverage limits rather than a true zero in market activity.
Standing sub-brief108 words · last cycle wpm-2026-07-05

Commercial Intelligence (M&A, Investment & Product)

Huntington Bancshares closed its acquisition of Dallas-based Veritex Holdings on October 19, 2025, and is targeting market-share expansion into North Carolina and South Carolina with plans to build dozens of new branches; deal value was not publicly disclosed. Carter Bankshares, a Virginia-based bank, opened a loan production office in South Carolina in November 2025 and is considering acquiring a bank to widen its Carolinas footprint, especially in South Carolina; this is a rumoured, early-stage move with no target or valuation disclosed.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T3https://www.americanbanker.com/tag/mergers-and-acquisitions
  2. T3https://www.americanbanker.com/news/the-five-biggest-bank-m-a-deals-of-2025retrieved
  3. T1https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-applauds-passage-of-new-law-to-combat-financial-exploitation-of-the-elderly-and-other-vulnerable-adults/retrieved
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 – South Carolina
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), 52 finding(s), 125 source(s) in the cumulative register.