A family looks at a parent’s bank statements and finds money missing. Someone close to the parent — an adult child, a caregiver, a friend who appeared recently — has been moving it. Three questions get asked at once, usually in the same conversation: Can he be charged? Does somebody have to report this? Can we sue?
In Minnesota those are three questions under three statutes, and the statutes do not agree with each other. The crime is Minn. Stat. § 609.2335. The reporting duty is the Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.557. The civil claim is § 626.557, subd. 20. Each one asks whether the person is a “vulnerable adult” and whether the conduct was “financial exploitation” — and each one gets those two terms from a different place.
So “is this reportable” can have a different answer than “is this chargeable,” which can have a different answer than “is this actionable.” That is not a drafting curiosity. It is the first thing to sort out, because the answer determines who you call and what you file.
“Vulnerable adult” is defined twice, and the two definitions are not the same
Minnesota has two definitions of the term, in two chapters, doing two different jobs.
The criminal definition lives at Minn. Stat. § 609.232, subd. 11. Its scope provision, § 609.232, subd. 1, is explicit about where it applies: “As used in sections 609.2325, 609.233, 609.2335, and 609.234, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given.” Those are, respectively, criminal abuse, criminal neglect, criminal financial exploitation, and the crime of failing to report.
The reporting definition lives at § 626.5572, subd. 21, and its scope provision, § 626.5572, subd. 1, is equally explicit: “For the purpose of section 626.557, the following terms have the meanings given them, unless otherwise specified.”
Both definitions have the same architecture — four ways to qualify, three of them keyed to a facility or a licensed service, and a fourth catch-all for people living independently. For most families, only the fourth one matters, because the parent in question lives at home and receives no licensed services. Here is the fourth clause in each.
Section 609.232, subd. 11(4) — a person who, “regardless of residence or whether any type of service is received, possesses a physical or mental infirmity or other physical, mental, or emotional dysfunction”:
“(i) that impairs the individual’s ability to provide adequately for the individual’s own care without assistance, including the provision of food, shelter, clothing, health care, or supervision; and
(ii) because of the dysfunction or infirmity and the need for assistance, the individual has an impaired ability to protect the individual from maltreatment.“
Section 626.5572, subd. 21(a)(4), same opening words:
“(i) that impairs the individual’s ability to provide adequately for the individual’s own care without assistance, including the provision of food, shelter, clothing, health care, or supervision; and
(ii) because of the dysfunction or infirmity and the need for care or services, the individual has an impaired ability to protect the individual’s self from maltreatment.“
Item (i) is word-for-word identical. Item (ii) is not: the criminal version turns on “the need for assistance,” the reporting version on “the need for care or services” — and the reporting version then defines that phrase, at § 626.5572, subd. 21(b): “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘care or services’ means care or services for the health, safety, welfare, or maintenance of an individual.”
The other three clauses diverge further.
| Route to “vulnerable adult” | § 609.232, subd. 11 (crimes) | § 626.5572, subd. 21 (reporting and civil claim) |
|---|---|---|
| Facility status | “is a resident inpatient of a facility” | “is a resident or inpatient of a facility” |
| Licensed adult services | “receives services at or from a facility required to be licensed to serve adults under sections 245A.01 to 245A.15” | “receives services required to be licensed under chapter 245A” |
| Commitment carve-out | Excludes a person receiving outpatient chemical dependency or mental illness treatment, or committed as a sexual psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous person, unless clause (4) is met | Same, but written as “substance use disorder,” and adds “one who is served in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program on a court-hold order for commitment” |
| Personal care assistance | A person or organization that “exclusively offers, provides, or arranges for personal care assistance services” under the listed medical assistance sections | A person or organization that “offers, provides, or arranges for personal care assistance services” — no “exclusively,” and the list includes § 256B.85 |
| Catch-all, item (ii) | “the need for assistance” | “the need for care or services,” as defined in paragraph (b) |
The reporting definition is the broader of the two. A person can be a vulnerable adult for purposes of the duty to report and the civil claim, and not be one for purposes of the crime.
What § 609.2335 makes criminal, and what it does not
The crime has two branches. Section 609.2335, subd. 1, provides that “Whoever does any of the following acts commits the crime of financial exploitation”:
Branch one — breach of a fiduciary obligation. Where the actor is “in breach of a fiduciary obligation recognized elsewhere in law, including pertinent regulations, contractual obligations, documented consent by a competent person, or the obligations of a responsible party under section 144.6501,” and intentionally does any of three things: fails to use the adult’s resources to provide for the adult; “uses, manages, or takes either temporarily or permanently” those resources “for the benefit of someone other than the vulnerable adult”; or “deprives either temporarily or permanently” the adult of them, again for someone else’s benefit. Note that the statute reaches property “whether held in the name of the vulnerable adult or a third party.”
Branch two — absence of legal authority. Three items: acquiring possession or control of the adult’s property “through the use of undue influence, harassment, or duress”; forcing, compelling, coercing, or enticing the adult “against the vulnerable adult’s will to perform services for the profit or advantage of another”; and establishing “a relationship with a fiduciary obligation to a vulnerable adult by use of undue influence, harassment, duress, force, compulsion, coercion, or other enticement.”
That third item is worth sitting with. It is a crime in Minnesota to obtain the fiduciary position itself by undue influence — to talk your way into being named agent under a power of attorney. The exploitation does not have to have happened yet.
Two defenses are written into subdivision 2. First, “Nothing in this section requires a facility or caregiver to provide financial management or supervise financial management for a vulnerable adult except as otherwise required by law.” Second, and more often decisive:
“If the actor knew or had reason to know that the vulnerable adult lacked capacity to consent, consent is not a defense to a violation of this section.”
The penalty structure is split, and the split is not intuitive. Section 609.2335, subd. 3:
“A person who violates subdivision 1, clause (1) or (2), item (i), may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3. A person who violates subdivision 1, clause (2), item (ii) or (iii), may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.”
So the money prongs — fiduciary breach, and acquiring property by undue influence — are sentenced on the theft ladder in § 609.52, subd. 3, which runs from “imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000” where the value is $500 or less, up to “imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both,” where “the value of the property or services stolen is more than $35,000.” That top tier names § 609.2335 expressly. Meanwhile the coerced-services prong and the induced-fiduciary-relationship prong carry a flat maximum of 364 days and $3,000 no matter how much was ultimately at stake.
Two procedural provisions make these cases prosecutable in the real world, where exploitation is a pattern rather than an event. Subdivision 4 permits aggregation: “the value of the money or property or services received by the defendant within any six-month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of subdivision 3 . . . .” Subdivision 5 sets venue “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 627.01,” allowing prosecution in “the county where any part of the offense occurred” or “the county of residence of the victim or one of the victims.”
The reporting duty runs on a lower trigger and a shorter clock
The Vulnerable Adults Act does not wait for proof. Section 626.557, subd. 3(a):
“A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated, or who has knowledge that a vulnerable adult has sustained a physical injury which is not reasonably explained shall immediately report the information to the common entry point.”
“Immediately” is defined. Section 626.5572, subd. 10: “‘Immediately’ means as soon as possible, but no longer than 24 hours from the time initial knowledge that the incident occurred has been received.”
Who is bound. Section 626.5572, subd. 16 defines a mandated reporter as “a professional or professional’s delegate while engaged in: (1) social services; (2) law enforcement; (3) education; (4) the care of vulnerable adults; (5) any of the occupations referred to in section 214.01, subdivision 2; (6) an employee of a rehabilitation facility certified by the commissioner of jobs and training for vocational rehabilitation; (7) an employee or person providing services in a facility as defined in subdivision 6; or (8) a person that performs the duties of the medical examiner or coroner.”
Clause (5) is the wide one — it pulls in the health-related and other licensed professions covered by § 214.01, subd. 2. Family members are generally not mandated reporters, and do not need to be: § 626.557, subd. 3(b) provides that “A person not required to report under the provisions of this section may voluntarily report as described above.”
One carve-out that prevents a lot of unnecessary alarm. Section 626.557, subd. 3a(5):
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a report of financial exploitation, as defined in section 626.5572, subdivision 9, solely on the basis of the transfer of money or property by gift or as compensation for services rendered.”
A parent giving an adult child money is not, standing alone, a reportable event.
Immunity is broad and the reporter’s name is protected. Section 626.557, subd. 5(a): “A person who makes a good faith report is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise result from making the report, or from participating in the investigation, or for failure to comply fully with the reporting obligation under section 609.234 or 626.557, subdivision 7.” Subdivision 5(d): “The identity of any reporter may not be disclosed, except as provided in subdivision 12b.” And subdivision 12b(c) sets a high bar for piercing that: “The subject of the report may compel disclosure of the name of the reporter only with the consent of the reporter or upon a written finding by a court that the report was false and there is evidence that the report was made in bad faith.”
The immunity is not a license. Subdivision 6 makes a person or facility “who intentionally makes a false report” liable “for any actual damages suffered by the reported facility, person or persons and for punitive damages up to $10,000 and attorney fees.”
Retaliation carries its own remedy and a presumption. Section 626.557, subd. 17(a): “A facility or person shall not retaliate against any person who reports in good faith suspected maltreatment pursuant to this section, or against a vulnerable adult with respect to whom a report is made, because of the report.” Paragraph (b) makes a retaliator “liable to that person for actual damages, punitive damages up to $10,000, and attorney fees,” expressly “[i]n addition to any remedies allowed under sections 181.931 to 181.935” — the whistleblower statutes. And paragraph (c) supplies the evidentiary lever: “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action, as defined below, within 90 days of a report, is retaliatory.” The enumerated adverse actions include discharge or transfer from the facility, termination of employment, demotion or reduced pay, “restriction or prohibition of access to the facility or its residents,” and “any restriction of rights set forth in section 144.651.”
Failing to report has two consequences, one civil and one criminal. Civil: § 626.557, subd. 7 — “A mandated reporter who negligently or intentionally fails to report is liable for damages caused by the failure. Nothing in this subdivision imposes vicarious liability for the acts or omissions of others.” Criminal: § 609.234, which makes it a misdemeanor for a mandated reporter who “knows or has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated” to intentionally fail to report, to knowingly provide “information which is false, deceptive, or misleading,” or to intentionally omit material circumstances. Subdivision 2 raises that to a gross misdemeanor where the reporter knows the maltreatment caused or contributed to death or great bodily harm and the failure to report causes or contributes to death or great bodily harm “or protects the mandated reporter’s interests.”
And here the definitional seam reopens. Section 609.234 is one of the four sections listed in § 609.232, subd. 1, so it takes “vulnerable adult” from chapter 609 — but it defines the maltreatment element by reference to “section 626.5572, subdivision 15,” from chapter 626. The duty it enforces, in § 626.557, runs entirely on chapter 626’s definitions. The failure-to-report crime is a hybrid, and the statutes have not been written to line up. The text does not say what happens in the gap.
One practical note for clinicians and social workers, who are the reporters most likely to hesitate: § 626.557, subd. 4(a) resolves the records question directly. “A mandated reporter may disclose not public data, as defined in section 13.02, and medical records under sections 144.291 to 144.298, to the extent necessary to comply with this subdivision.” The Minnesota Health Records Act governs those records generally; the reporting statute carves out what a report requires.
The civil remedy is the part families most often miss
Section 626.557, subd. 20 is short, and it does a great deal of work.
“(a) A vulnerable adult who is a victim of financial exploitation as defined in section 626.5572, subdivision 9, has a cause of action against a person who committed the financial exploitation. In an action under this subdivision, the vulnerable adult is entitled to recover damages equal to three times the amount of compensatory damages or $10,000, whichever is greater.
(b) In addition to damages under paragraph (a), the vulnerable adult is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, including reasonable fees for the services of a guardian or conservator or guardian ad litem incurred in connection with a claim under this subdivision.
(c) An action may be brought under this subdivision regardless of whether there has been a report or final disposition under this section or a criminal complaint or conviction related to the financial exploitation.“
Three features deserve emphasis.
First, paragraph (c) decouples the civil claim from everything else. No report is required. No investigative disposition is required. No criminal charge, and no conviction. Families frequently wait for a county investigation or a charging decision that may never come; the statute does not make them wait.
Second, the floor. Treble compensatory damages or $10,000, whichever is greater. In a case where the provable loss is small but the conduct is clear, the statutory floor is what makes the claim worth bringing.
Third — and this is the definitional point again — the civil claim borrows “financial exploitation” from § 626.5572, subd. 9, not from the criminal statute. The reporting-side definition covers, in relevant part, a person who “in the absence of legal authority” either “willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult” or “acquires possession or control of, or an interest in, funds or property of a vulnerable adult through the use of undue influence, harassment, duress, deception, or fraud.” The criminal statute’s parallel provision, § 609.2335, subd. 1(2)(i), lists only “undue influence, harassment, or duress.” Deception and fraud appear in the civil and reporting definition and not in the criminal one.
The statute does not state its own limitations period, and which general period applies is a question worth raising at the outset rather than after the fact.
The fiduciary layer sits underneath all of it
Most of these cases involve someone holding a document. Chapter 523 imposes duties on that person that exist whether or not anyone is a “vulnerable adult” under any of the definitions above.
Recordkeeping is mandatory; accounting is conditional. Section 523.21 opens: “The attorney-in-fact shall keep complete records of all transactions entered into by the attorney-in-fact on behalf of the principal.” The duty to render an accounting arises in only three situations — where the principal requests one, where the instrument requires one and says to whom, or where the agent “has reimbursed the attorney-in-fact for any expenditure the attorney-in-fact has made on behalf of the principal.” The section also fixes who may inspect: the principal, any accounting recipient the principal named in the document, the guardian or conservator of the principal’s estate while the principal is living, and the personal representative after death.
The standard of conduct and the liability rule are in the same section. The agent must exercise the power “in the same manner as an ordinarily prudent person of discretion and intelligence would exercise in the management of the person’s own affairs and shall have the interests of the principal utmost in mind.” And the agent “is personally liable to any person, including the principal, who is injured by an action taken by the attorney-in-fact in bad faith under the power of attorney or by the attorney-in-fact’s failure to account when the attorney-in-fact has a duty to account under this section.”
Section 523.22 adds a treble-damages remedy, but a narrow one. The full operative sentence:
“An attorney-in-fact who knowingly executes a false affidavit or, knowing that the conditions of section 523.18 are not satisfied, signs on behalf of the principal is liable for treble the amount of damages suffered by the principal.”
Section 523.18 is the provision that makes an agent’s signature “conclusive proof” to a relying third party that the power had not terminated — by the principal’s death, by dissolution proceedings where the agent is the spouse, by the principal’s incapacity where the power terminates on incapacity, or by revocation. So the § 523.22 treble remedy is aimed at a specific act: signing as agent while knowing the authority is gone, or swearing falsely to it. It is not a general treble remedy for misusing the power. Section 523.22 also preserves everything else — “Nothing in sections 523.01 to 523.24 limits any rights the principal may have against the attorney-in-fact for any fraudulent or negligent actions in executing affidavits or signing or acting on behalf of the principal as an attorney-in-fact.”
And there is a way to force the books open. Section 523.26(a): “The principal or any interested person, as defined in section 524.5-102, subdivision 7, may petition the court for a protective order directing an attorney-in-fact to provide an accounting, on a schedule directed by a court, or for any other relief as provided in sections 524.5-401 to 524.5-502.” Fees follow: the principal or a designated accounting recipient “is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs if the court finds that the attorney-in-fact failed to render an accounting to the principal or any person named by the principal in the power of attorney form to receive accountings after the duty to render an accounting arose.”
Two treble-damages remedies, two different triggers. Section 523.22 trebles for a false affidavit or an unauthorized signature. Section 626.557, subd. 20 trebles for financial exploitation as chapter 626 defines it. The same agent taking the same money can fall inside one, both, or neither.
The whole map, on one page
| Regime | Statute | “Vulnerable adult” comes from | “Financial exploitation” comes from | What it produces |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The crime | § 609.2335 | § 609.232, subd. 11 | § 609.2335, subd. 1 (its own text) | Theft-ladder sentencing for the money prongs; 364 days / $3,000 for the coerced-services and induced-fiduciary prongs |
| Failure to report | § 609.234 | § 609.232, subd. 11 | Maltreatment as defined in § 626.5572, subd. 15 | Misdemeanor; gross misdemeanor in the death / great-bodily-harm case |
| The reporting duty | § 626.557 | § 626.5572, subd. 21 | § 626.5572, subd. 9 | Report to the common entry point within 24 hours; lead-agency investigation; civil liability under subd. 7 for failing |
| The civil claim | § 626.557, subd. 20 | § 626.5572, subd. 21 | § 626.5572, subd. 9 | Treble compensatory damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees and costs |
| Protection order | § 609.2334 | § 626.5572, subd. 21 (by cross-reference in subd. 1) | § 626.5572, subd. 9 (by cross-reference) | Injunctive and other equitable relief |
| Financial-institution hold | Ch. 45A | “Eligible adult” — § 45A.01, subd. 5: a person 65 or older, or a person subject to § 626.5572, subd. 21 | § 45A.01, subd. 6 (a third, differently worded definition) | Disclosures and delayed disbursements by financial services providers, broker-dealers, and investment advisers, with immunity |
| Agent under a power of attorney | §§ 523.21, 523.22, 523.26 | Not used — duties run to any principal | Not used — breach of duty, bad faith, false affidavit | Personal liability; treble damages under § 523.22; court-ordered accounting and fees under § 523.26 |
Chapter 45A deserves the extra line. Its “eligible adult” definition is the only one in Minnesota law that reaches a person by age alone — “a person 65 years of age or older” — without asking about infirmity, residence, or services received. A bank may act on a suspicion that would not, by itself, satisfy any other definition on this chart.
What the 2026 session changed
Three currency notes, because this area moved.
The criminal definition got a technical fix. The 2026 technical corrections act amended § 609.232, subd. 11(2), replacing the cross-reference to “sections 245A.01 to 245A.15” with “chapter 245A.” That narrows one gap between the two definitions of “vulnerable adult.” It does not close the others — “resident inpatient” versus “resident or inpatient,” “exclusively,” and “the need for assistance” versus “the need for care or services” all survive.
The reporting-side definition of financial exploitation got broader. The 2026 human services act amended § 626.5572, subd. 9(a)(1) to strike the qualifier “which results or is likely to result in detriment to the vulnerable adult” from the unauthorized-expenditure prong. Because § 626.557, subd. 20 and § 609.2334 both borrow that definition, the change carries into the civil claim and the protection order.
The county adult-protective-services machinery was rebuilt. Section 626.557, subd. 10 — the old “Duties of county social service agency” provision — was repealed, and its substance redistributed into new subdivisions 11b through 11j, which spell out screening timelines, agency authority, legal-intervention duties, and a conflict-of-interest referral rule. The list of interventions a county may seek, formerly at subd. 10(g), now sits at subd. 11h(b) and has grown to nine items, including “a referral for a financial transaction hold under chapter 45A.”
These are already in force, and the reason is worth understanding. None of the article 7 sections other than the repealer carries its own effective-date clause, so the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 governs. The familiar sentence is the first one — “Each act, except one making appropriations, enacted finally at any session of the legislature takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act.” Read only that far and the answer looks like August 1, 2026.
But the exception swallows this act. The second paragraph of § 645.02 supplies the rule for the other case:
An appropriation act or an act having appropriation items enacted finally at any session of the legislature takes effect at the beginning of the first day of July next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act.
Chapter 95 is a human services act carrying fiscal-year appropriations in its own article 2. It is therefore “an act having appropriation items,” and the July 1 default applies — so the article 7 amendments to §§ 626.557 and 626.5572 took effect July 1, 2026, not August 1. The repealer of subdivision 10 states separately that it “is effective the day following final enactment.”
The practical point is that “August 1” is not a safe default for a Minnesota session law. An act with appropriation items anywhere in it moves to July 1 unless it says otherwise, and health and human services acts routinely carry them. Section 609.2335 itself was not amended in the 2026 session.
What to do
- Do not wait for a determination before preserving the record. Bank and brokerage statements, cancelled checks, credit reports, deeds, beneficiary-designation changes, the power of attorney itself and any successor version. The civil claim under § 626.557, subd. 20 is proved with documents, and paragraph (c) says you do not need a report or a charge first.
- If you suspect maltreatment, you may report whether or not you are required to. Section 626.557, subd. 3(b) allows voluntary reports. Reports go to the common entry point the commissioner of human services is required to establish and keep “available 24 hours per day” under § 626.557, subd. 9. The Department of Human Services operates it as the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center: “If you suspect a person who is vulnerable is being neglected, mistreated, or exploited, call the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) at 1-844-880-1574.” Confirm the current number with the Department before relying on it. Call 911 first in an emergency.
- If you are a mandated reporter, the clock is 24 hours, not “when I have proof.” The trigger in § 626.557, subd. 3(a) is “reason to believe.” The immunity in subd. 5(a) is written for exactly the reporter who turns out to be wrong in good faith.
- If you reported and something happened to you within 90 days, say so. Section 626.557, subd. 17(c) gives you a rebuttable presumption, and subd. 17(b) gives you actual damages, punitive damages up to $10,000, and attorney fees on top of the whistleblower statutes.
- Ask the agent for the accounting in writing. Under § 523.21, a request by the principal triggers the duty. If it is refused, § 523.26 lets the principal or an interested person petition for an order compelling it — with fees available if the court finds the accounting was owed and not rendered.
- Do not assume a gift is exploitation, and do not assume it is not. Section 626.557, subd. 3a(5) says a transfer “by gift or as compensation for services rendered” does not, standing alone, require a report. Capacity and undue influence are separate questions, and § 609.2335, subd. 2(b) removes consent as a defense where the actor knew or had reason to know the adult lacked capacity to consent.
- Sort out which definition you are under before you decide what to file. The reporting and civil definitions in chapter 626 are broader than the criminal definition in chapter 609. A county declination or a prosecutor’s pass on charges does not resolve the civil claim.
The observation
The natural assumption is that these statutes are one system with one gate — that if the conduct is serious enough to report, it is serious enough to charge, and if it is chargeable, it is actionable. Minnesota’s statutes are not built that way. They are three regimes, enacted at different times for different purposes, that happen to use the same two phrases.
The practical consequence runs in a consistent direction. Chapter 626’s definitions are the broader ones, and they are the ones that carry the civil remedy. A person can fall outside § 609.232, subd. 11 — and so outside the reach of a prosecutor under § 609.2335 — while sitting squarely inside § 626.5572, subd. 21, with a treble-damages claim under § 626.557, subd. 20 and a protection order available under § 609.2334. Chapter 45A goes further still and asks only whether the person is 65.
Which means the most common mistake in these situations is treating a criminal declination as the end of the matter. It answers one of the three questions.
Madgett Law, LLC advises families and vulnerable adults on financial exploitation claims, represents principals and interested persons in disputes over powers of attorney and accountings, and counsels mandated reporters on their obligations under the Vulnerable Adults Act. If money has moved out of a relative’s accounts and you are not sure which of these statutes is in play, that is the conversation to have first. Send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 609.232, subds. 1 (scope), 6 (maltreatment), and 11 (vulnerable adult); § 609.2334, subd. 1 (order for protection against financial exploitation; definitions, including the cross-references to § 626.5572, subds. 9, 13, and 21); § 609.2335, subds. 1 (crime), 2 (defenses), 3 (criminal penalties), 4 (aggregation), and 5 (venue); § 609.234, subds. 1 and 2 (failure to report; increased penalty); § 609.52, subd. 3, cls. (1)–(5) (theft sentencing ladder, incorporated by § 609.2335, subd. 3); § 626.557, subds. 1 (public policy), 3 (timing of report), 3a (report not required), 4 (reporting; disclosure of medical records under §§ 144.291–144.298), 4a (internal reporting), 5 (immunity; protection for reporters), 5a (financial institution cooperation), 6 (falsified reports), 7 (failure to report), 8 (evidence not privileged), 9 (common entry point designation), 10 (duties of county social service agency), 12b (data management, including para. (c) on reporter identity), 17 (retaliation prohibited), and 20 (cause of action for financial exploitation; damages); § 626.5572, subds. 1 (scope), 9 (financial exploitation), 10 (immediately), 13 (lead investigative agency), 15 (maltreatment), 16 (mandated reporter), and 21 (vulnerable adult); § 523.18 (signature of attorney-in-fact as conclusive proof of nontermination); § 523.21 (duties of an attorney-in-fact); § 523.22 (liability of attorney-in-fact for improper execution of affidavits and signature); § 523.26 (judicial relief); § 45A.01, subds. 5 (eligible adult), 6 (financial exploitation), and 6a (financial services provider), and Minn. Stat. ch. 45A generally (financial exploitation protections for older or vulnerable adults); and § 645.02 (effective date and time of laws). All retrieved from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 2025 Minnesota Statutes edition, at revisor.mn.gov. Currency notes, each read in the session law: § 609.232, subd. 11, was amended by 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 88, art. 1, § 220 (technical corrections; “sections 245A.01 to 245A.15” replaced with “chapter 245A”). Section 626.5572, subds. 2, 9, 13, and 17 were amended and subds. 3a, 3b, and 12a added by 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 95, art. 7, §§ 20–26; the amendment to subd. 9 strikes “which results or is likely to result in detriment to the vulnerable adult” from paragraph (a), clause (1), and substitutes “the vulnerable adult” for “a third person” in paragraph (b), clause (2). Section 626.557, subd. 10, was repealed and subds. 1a and 11b–11j added by 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 95, art. 7, §§ 7, 10–18, 27. Sections 609.2335, 626.5572, subd. 21, 523.21, 523.22, and 523.26 were not amended in the 2026 session. Reporting-center contact information from the Minnesota Department of Human Services MAARC page, mn.gov (mn.gov blocked direct retrieval; text confirmed from the Internet Archive capture of April 19, 2026); verify the current number with the Department. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Whether a particular person meets any of these definitions, and whether particular conduct is exploitation, depends on facts a lawyer would need to review. No outcome is promised or implied.