#
Montana is the sole US state that does not operate a state-level money transmitter licensing regime; DBFI licenses adjacent activities under Title 32 MCA; a brief 2023 informal solicitation attempt was withdrawn.
Outlook
Absent a new legislative initiative, Montana's licensing gap is unlikely to close in the near term; the operative market-access question for entrants is not licensing burden but regulatory ambiguity, since firms must rely on federal registration with no state-level safe harbor or supervisory relationship. Any renewed DBFI solicitation of MTL-style data, flagged explicitly as a lead signal to watch, would mark the first concrete step toward change since 2023.
Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access
Montana confirmed this cycle, through a primary statement from its own Division of Banking and Financial Institutions, that it remains the only US state without a money-transmitter licensing statute. Money-services businesses operating in Montana register only with the Secretary of State and rely on federal Bank Secrecy Act and money-services-business registration status in place of a state money-transmitter licence, an exemption structure with no equivalent among Montana's peer states. This finding carries a bank-versus-nonbank distinction worth stating explicitly: bank-provided payment services in Montana continue to operate under federal and state banking-charter supervision regardless of this gap, since the absence of a state MTL statute affects nonbank payment-institution and e-money-style money-transmission activity specifically, not bank-charter-based payment provision.
Montana's position is further set apart by its total non-adoption of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors' Money Transmission Modernization Act, which thirty-one states have now enacted in full or in part. Montana has no base licensing regime to modernize in the first place, which places it outside the multistate harmonization trend entirely rather than merely lagging behind it in implementation.
Separately, and materially, Kalshi filed a federal lawsuit against Montana asserting that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over its event-contract products, directly testing whether Montana's state-level jurisdiction, whether framed as gambling law or financial-activity regulation, can reach a CFTC-regulated product operating in the state. The suit follows a 2025 state cease-and-desist letter. This is a live market-access dispute with direct relevance to any nonbank entity offering CFTC-regulated or CFTC-adjacent products in Montana, since its outcome will help define the boundary of state authority over such products.
Watch for whether Montana's legislature or banking regulator moves toward a state money-transmitter licensing framework, a track not currently evidenced as active. Watch also for developments in Kalshi v. Montana, since a ruling would clarify the state's authority over CFTC-regulated products operating within its borders, a question with direct market-access implications for any similarly structured nonbank product.
Sources and findings (7 unique sources · R-3/R-4)
The Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions (Division) does not regulate money transmitters, though other licenses (escrow, consumer finance, retail sales finance) may still apply depending on the specific activities conducted.
- [W1a-E2] T1 Derived: Confirmed in_forcehttps://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0320/chapter_0010/part_0020/section_0110/0320-0010-0020-0110.html re-verified
The Montana Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Title 32 MCA) contains the general provisions governing DBFI's authority to examine, supervise and take enforcement action against banks, trust companies and their service providers, including joint examination arrangements with federal regulators.
- [W1a-E3] T1 Derived: Confirmed in_forcehttps://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0320/chapter_0070/part_0010/section_0090/0320-0070-0010-0090.html re-verified
Under 32-7-109 MCA, a person must be licensed before engaging in an escrow business in Montana, and at application must file a surety bond (set by department rule, commonly $100,000) issued by a state-auditor-certified surety, renewed annually.
- [W1a-E4] T1 Derived: Confirmed in_forcehttps://banking.mt.gov/MortgageConsumerFinance/FAQs re-verified
The Montana Consumer Loan Act does not require a licensee to maintain a physical office in the state (Montana is 'not a brick and mortar state') and, unlike the Escrow Act, imposes no bond requirement on consumer loan licensees; licensing runs through NMLS.
- [W1a-E5] T1 Derived: Confirmed in_forcehttps://doa.mt.gov/BFID/mortgage-consumer-finance/ re-verified
A sales finance license is required to engage in retail installment sales business under Section 31-1-201 MCA, administered by DBFI through NMLS, alongside escrow and mortgage licensing lines; Montana currently has no licensed payday/deferred-deposit lenders and repealed its Title Loan Act.
- [W1a-E6] T3 Derived: Probable in_forcehttps://www.mwe.com/insights/montana-pump-fakes-a-requirement-for-money-transmitters/ re-verified
In March 2023 the Division issued a letter requiring money transmitters to submit detailed business plans and flow-of-funds structures, but the letter was withdrawn shortly after, and Montana-specific MTLs remain not required to serve Montanans.
- [W1a-E7] T3 Derived: Probable in_forcehttps://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-09-12-model-money-transmission-modernization-act-12-states-take-action re-verified
Industry tracking of the CSBS Model Money Transmission Modernization Act confirms that, as of the 2023-2025 wave of state adoptions, every US state except Montana regulates money transmission under a state-specific licensing regime.