Bad checks, welfare fraud and unemployment fraud in Michigan

A bounced check is not a crime by itself. Under MCL 750.131 the prosecutor must prove that the check was made, drawn, uttered or delivered with intent to defraud, and either that the person knew at that time there were not enough funds or credit to pay it in full, or that the funds were short when it was presented. The jury is told there is no intent to defraud if the person had good reason to expect payment or made an honest mistake about the balance.

MCL 750.131 has two parts. Subsection (1) bars making, drawing, uttering or delivering a check, draft or order on a bank or other depository with intent to defraud and knowing at that time that the maker does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank to pay it in full on presentation. Subsection (2) covers a check written with intent to defraud when the funds are not there at the time of presentation, but it does not apply if the lack of funds is due to garnishment, attachment, levy or another lawful cause that the person did not know about when the check was written. The model jury instruction (M Crim JI 29.9) lists what must be proved: the check was written or delivered, it was drawn on a bank and signed, the person knew when writing it that there was not enough money or credit (or knew there would not be enough when it was presented), the person intended to defraud or cheat someone, and the amount fell in one of three ranges. Two companion instructions are favorable on intent. If the person knew the balance was short but had good reason to believe the check would be paid when presented, there was no intent to defraud (M Crim JI 29.2). If the account was short because of an honest mistake about how much was in it, the same is true (M Crim JI 29.3). The check must have been presented for payment, but it does not matter whether anyone actually suffered a loss (M Crim JI 29.4). The facts that tend to matter are bank statements showing deposits and their timing, direct deposit schedules, bank holds or errors, automatic withdrawals that posted first, and the messages with the person who took the check.

Authority: MCL 750.131(1), (2); M Crim JI 29.9; M Crim JI 29.2; M Crim JI 29.3; M Crim JI 29.4. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 750.132, a check refused by the bank when presented in the usual course of business is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds, unless the maker pays the drawee, which is the bank, the amount due with costs and protest fees within 5 days after receiving notice. The jury is told it may, but does not have to, infer intent from those facts. Paying in time removes only that one statutory shortcut. MCL 750.133 separately makes a notice of protest prima facie evidence and sets no payment condition.

Two short statutes give the prosecutor help on intent. MCL 750.132 says the making or delivery of a check that the bank refuses to pay when presented in the usual course of business is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds, provided the maker has not paid the amount due, together with all costs and protest fees, within 5 days after receiving notice that the check was not paid. MCL 750.133 adds that a notice of protest is admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment and protest, and is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds or credit. The jury instructions turn these into a permissive inference: if the facts are proved and are not explained, the jury may infer intent to defraud or cheat, but does not have to (M Crim JI 29.5 and 29.6). So the 5-day window matters, but only for the MCL 750.132 presumption. A payment made on time, with the costs and fees, removes that presumption, while a missed window leaves the prosecutor with it. It does not remove the MCL 750.133 route: that section applies where the check was protested for insufficient funds or credit, and neither it nor M Crim JI 29.6 states any payment condition. Neither side of that is a verdict. The prosecutor still has to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and a payment does not by itself decide whether a charge is filed. The text of the statutes does not say who must send the notice or in what form. In practice the date the notice was received, how it was delivered, and proof of the payment and its date are the records to keep. The text of MCL 750.132 speaks of payment to the drawee, which is the bank, and that may differ from the payee or collection service named in a notice, so it helps to document exactly who was paid, when and how.

Authority: MCL 750.132; MCL 750.133; M Crim JI 29.5; M Crim JI 29.6. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 750.131 the grade depends on the amount of the check. Under $100: a misdemeanor with up to 93 days or $500 for a first offense, up to 1 year or $1,000 with a prior. $100 to under $500: a misdemeanor with up to 1 year for a first or second offense, a 2-year felony after two or more priors. $500 or more: a felony with up to 2 years or a $2,000 fine, or three times the amount payable if greater.

MCL 750.131(3) sets the penalty by the amount payable on the check, draft or order. For under $100, a first offense is a misdemeanor with up to 93 days in jail or a fine of up to $500, or both. For an offense after one or more prior convictions under the section, or under a matching local ordinance, it is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year or a fine of up to $1,000, or both. For $100 to under $500, a first or second offense is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year or a fine of up to $1,000 or three times the amount payable, whichever is greater, or both. After two or more prior convictions it becomes a felony with up to 2 years or a fine of up to $2,000, or both; priors for the under-$100 tier do not count toward that step. For $500 or more, it is a felony with up to 2 years or a fine of up to $2,000 or three times the amount payable, whichever is greater, or both. The amount is the amount payable in the check, and the text has no clause for adding up separate checks, though separate checks can be charged as separate counts and a run of three bad checks in 10 days is its own felony under MCL 750.131a. If the prosecutor wants an enhanced sentence based on priors, the prior convictions must be listed on the complaint and information, and the judge decides them without a jury, using records such as the judgment, a transcript, the presentence report or the defendant's statement. Prior convictions used for this enhancement cannot also be used for the habitual offender enhancement. Within those limits the judge decides whether a sentence involves jail, probation, fines or restitution to the payee, and the outcome in any individual case cannot be predicted from the grade alone.

Authority: MCL 750.131(3)-(5); MCL 750.131a(2). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

It can be. MCL 750.131a makes it a felony with up to 2 years or a $500 fine, or both, to write a check with intent to defraud on a bank where the person has no account or credit for paying it, and also to write three or more checks within 10 days with intent to defraud, knowing each time that there were not sufficient funds or credit. Intent to defraud is still an element.

MCL 750.131a has two separate felonies, each punishable by up to 2 years in prison or a fine of up to $500, or both. Subsection (1) covers making, drawing, uttering or delivering a check, draft or order, with intent to defraud, on a bank or depository where the person does not have an account or credit for paying the check on presentation at the time it was written. The jury instruction (M Crim JI 29.7) adds that the check must have been presented for payment, and defines credit as an arrangement or understanding with a bank that it will pay the check when presented (M Crim JI 29.1). A closed account fits the no-account language if the account was closed when the check was written. Subsection (2) covers writing three or more checks, drafts or orders within a period of not more than 10 days, with intent to defraud, knowing when each was written that the maker did not have sufficient funds or credit to pay it in full on presentation (M Crim JI 29.8). Both are specific intent crimes, and the instructions point to the same prima facie evidence provisions that apply to ordinary bad check charges (M Crim JI 29.5 and 29.6). That means the knowledge and intent questions run through every count: when the account was closed and whether the person knew, whether deposits were expected, and whether the checks were given for real debts. Because the two offenses are felonies regardless of the amount of any one check, small checks can still lead to felony exposure when the pattern is charged this way.

Authority: MCL 750.131a(1), (2); M Crim JI 29.7; M Crim JI 29.8; M Crim JI 29.1. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Sometimes, but not when the only false statement is the one built into handing over a check that lacked funds. In People v LaRose, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor had to charge the specific insufficient funds statute, MCL 750.131, in that situation. The Michigan Supreme Court later described that rule while noting that a bad check accompanied by an additional false representation may support a false pretenses charge.

People v LaRose, 87 Mich App 298, 302-304 (1978), involved a $150 insufficient funds check. The defendant pleaded guilty to obtaining money by false pretenses, and the Court of Appeals found no adequate factual basis. Its reasoning was that the defendant's only false pretense was the representation, incident to giving the check, that funds were on deposit, and that the Legislature intended the insufficient funds statute to be an exception to the general false pretenses statute, with a lesser penalty, for that particular kind of false pretense. The prosecutor therefore had to charge under MCL 750.131. The court added that a bad check accompanied by an additional false representation may support a conviction for false pretenses, and it distinguished two earlier cases for that reason. The Michigan Supreme Court described the LaRose decision in People v Ford, 417 Mich 66, 81-83 (1987), a credit card case, as a situation where the defendant's only false pretense was the false representation incident to the giving of an insufficient funds check, and noted again that additional false representation could justify a false pretenses conviction. In practice the question is what else was said or done: false statements about who the person was, what the check was for, whether the account was open, or a forged or altered check can move the conduct out of the plain bad check category. The charge matters because penalties differ: the bad check statute carries a 2-year felony at most, for $500 or more, and the false pretenses statute has its own value tiers with higher maximums at higher values. The false pretenses statute, MCL 750.218, runs from a misdemeanor with up to 93 days for a value under $200 to a felony with up to 20 years for a value of $100,000 or more.

Authority: People v LaRose, 87 Mich App 298, 302-304 (1978), lv den 406 Mich 943 (1979); People v Ford, 417 Mich 66, 81-83 (1987); MCL 750.131; MCL 750.218. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Only if it was done knowingly and with intent to defraud. MCL 750.157w covers using a debit, ATM or other financial transaction device to withdraw or transfer funds beyond the account's contractual limits or beyond the funds on deposit. It runs from a 93-day misdemeanor for under $200 to a 10-year felony for $20,000 or more. An ordinary overdraft without intent to defraud is a bank matter.

MCL 750.157w applies to a person who knowingly and with intent to defraud uses a financial transaction device to withdraw or transfer funds from a deposit account in violation of the contractual limits on the amount or frequency of withdrawals or transfers, or in an amount exceeding the funds then on deposit. The grades are by the amount withdrawn or transferred. Under $200: a misdemeanor with up to 93 days, or a fine of up to $500 or three times the amount, whichever is greater. $200 to under $1,000: a misdemeanor with up to 1 year, or a fine of up to $2,000 or three times the amount. $1,000 to under $20,000: a felony with up to 5 years, or a fine of up to $10,000 or three times the amount. $20,000 or more: a felony with up to 10 years, or a fine of up to $15,000 or three times the amount. Prior convictions under the statute raise the grade, must be listed on the complaint and information, and are decided by the judge. Amounts from separate incidents within a 12-month period under a scheme or course of conduct can be added together. The jury instruction (M Crim JI 30.11) lists the elements: use of the device to withdraw or transfer money, withdrawing more than the person had on deposit or more than allowed, doing so knowingly, intent to defraud or cheat someone, and the amount obtained. It is a specific intent crime. That is why the dividing line is intent: a person who misjudged a balance, relied on a deposit that posted late or was charged an overdraft by the bank is in a different position from one who made repeated withdrawals while knowing the money was not there or would be returned. A pattern, such as withdrawing funds just after depositing something that was later reversed, is the type of fact a prosecutor may point to. Bank records, deposit and reversal dates and messages explaining the transactions are the core evidence.

Authority: MCL 750.157w; M Crim JI 30.11. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 400.60(1) the prosecutor must prove a willful false statement or representation, impersonation, or other fraudulent device to obtain assistance the person was not entitled to, or a larger amount than was due. The model instruction adds that the person knew it was false, intended to defraud the agency, that an agency employee relied on it, and that benefits were received or would have been. Over $500 is a felony. $500 or less is a misdemeanor.

MCL 400.60(1) reaches a person who, by willful false statement or representation, by impersonation or other fraudulent device, or by using an access device, obtains or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets another in obtaining, assistance or relief to which the person is not entitled or a larger amount than the person is justly entitled to. If the amount involved is $500 or less it is a misdemeanor, and if it is more than $500 it is a felony. The amount involved is defined as the difference between the lawful amount of assistance and the amount actually received. The model jury instruction (M Crim JI 34.1) breaks the charge into elements: the defendant made a false statement or representation to the agency; knew it was false when making it; intended to defraud or cheat the agency; an agency employee relied on it; because of it the defendant received, or would have received, benefits not due or a larger amount than due; and the amount was over $500 or $500 or less, to be found by subtracting what the defendant was entitled to from what was received. It is a specific intent crime. Where an overpayment came from an agency mistake, a misunderstanding of a form, or a household member's undisclosed income that the applicant did not know about, the knowledge and intent elements are the usual place the defense is built. The statute also provides that when someone receives assistance through these means and prosecution is deemed unnecessary, the department may take steps to recover the amount plus 5 percent annual interest, which means a case can end up as a civil recovery. Applications, signed forms, case notes and what a worker actually asked are the central documents.

Authority: MCL 400.60(1); M Crim JI 34.1. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. MCL 400.60(2) puts a continuing duty on people receiving relief to give the department complete information about income, job offers, changes in circumstances and relatives responsible for support. Neglecting or refusing to do so is a misdemeanor if the relief granted as a result is less than $500 and a felony if it is $500 or more. The model instruction lists no intent-to-defraud element and defines neglect as carelessly failing to act.

MCL 400.60(2) imposes on every person receiving relief, whether through the person's own application or by inclusion in another person's application, a continuing obligation to give the issuing department the complete circumstances of income from employment or any other source, information on each offer of employment, information on changes in circumstances that would decrease the need for relief, and the circumstances or whereabouts of relatives legally responsible for support if those could affect the assistance. A person who neglects or refuses to submit the information is guilty of a misdemeanor if the relief granted as a result is less than $500 and a felony if it is $500 or more. The model jury instruction (M Crim JI 34.3) lists these elements: the defendant was receiving benefits; the defendant applied or knew of being included in another person's application; the defendant refused or neglected to provide information; the information was something the defendant had a duty to keep providing; the defendant knew about the duty; and the benefits received as a result were over or under the line, computed by subtracting what the defendant was entitled to from what was received. The optional definitions in the instruction say that to refuse means to intentionally not do an act and to neglect means to carelessly fail to do an act. The instruction does not list intent to defraud as an element for this charge, which is a major difference from the false statement charge in MCL 400.60(1). The facts that usually matter are what the person was told about reporting, whether and when a change in income was reported by phone or online, what the agency record shows, whether the person knew of the duty, and how much of the benefit was actually caused by the unreported change.

Authority: MCL 400.60(2); M Crim JI 34.3; People v Akerley, 73 Mich App 321, 325 (1977). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

MCL 400.60 labels false-statement welfare fraud a misdemeanor at $500 or less and a felony above that, and failure to report a misdemeanor under $500 and a felony at $500 or more, but says only that a person is punished as provided by the laws of this state. The general penalty provisions appear to fill the gap: a misdemeanor with no stated punishment carries up to 90 days or a fine of up to $500, and a felony with no stated punishment carries up to 4 years or a fine of up to $5,000.

MCL 400.60 does not state a term of imprisonment or a fine. For subsection (1), a misdemeanor at $500 or less and a felony above $500, the statute says the person shall, upon conviction, be punished as provided by the laws of this state. Subsection (2) for failure to report uses a different line, a misdemeanor if the relief granted is less than $500 and a felony at $500 or more, and also says the person is punished as provided by the laws of this state. Two general provisions of the Penal Code supply penalties when a statute names an offense a misdemeanor or felony without fixing the punishment. MCL 750.504 provides that a misdemeanor with no specially prescribed punishment is punishable by up to 90 days or a fine of up to $500, or both. MCL 750.503 provides that a felony with no specified punishment is punishable by up to 4 years or a fine of up to $5,000. Applying them to MCL 400.60 is a reading of how the statutes fit together and not an express statement in the welfare fraud statute. The sentencing guidelines offense table lists the failure-to-report felony, MCL 400.60(2), as a Class H property offense with a 4-year statutory maximum (MCL 777.14a), which matches the 4-year default. That table has no separate entry for the false-statement felony in subsection (1), so its 4-year figure rests on MCL 750.503 alone. Other consequences can come with a conviction. The department may recover the amount involved, with 5 percent annual interest, where prosecution is deemed unnecessary, and a court that does convict can order restitution. Sentencing guidelines apply to felonies, and the judge has discretion within the statutory limits, so the maximum is rarely the same as the likely outcome. Prior record, the amount, the length of time and repayment are the factors usually discussed.

Authority: MCL 400.60(1), (2); MCL 750.504; MCL 750.503; MCL 777.14a. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 421.54, an agency fraud finding for a knowing false statement or a knowing and willful failure to disclose a material fact lets the agency recover the benefits plus damages equal to that amount (1.5 times for a second or later violation after notice of the first), plus administrative fines. A willful violation of the act supports recovery plus three times the amount. The agency may refer the case for prosecution, and above $3,500 and below $25,000 the offense is designated a felony.

The penalty structure of MCL 421.54 has a civil side and a criminal side. Civil: for a knowing false statement or representation, or a knowing and willful failure to disclose a material fact with intent to defraud, to obtain or increase benefits, the claimant is subject to administrative fines and the agency may recover the amount obtained plus damages equal to that amount. For a second or later violation after proper notice of the first, the damages may be 1.5 times the amount. For a willful or intentional violation of the act under subsection (a), the agency may recover the amount plus damages of three times that amount. The section applies even if the amount obtained or withheld has been reported or reported and paid (subsection (h)). Criminal: the agency may refer the matter to the county prosecutor. Under subsection (b), where the amount is $1,000 or more and under $25,000, the recovery sought can include up to 1 year of imprisonment, community service of up to 1 year (not more than 2,080 hours), or a combination within 1 year. At $25,000 or more the limit is 2 years or community service of up to 2 years (4,160 hours). A knowing false statement that causes no loss can lead to recovery of three times the amount that would have been obtained, but not less than $1,000, and up to 2 years. Subsection (a) sets higher criminal tiers for willful violations, up to 5 years where the amount exceeds $100,000. Under subsection (l), obtaining or withholding an amount above $3,500 and below $25,000 through a knowing false statement or knowing and willful failure to disclose is a felony. The section was last amended by 2018 PA 73, and the 2017 amendments apply to determinations made on or after July 1, 2018. Section 62 sanctions may also apply and are not covered here.

Authority: MCL 421.54(a), (b), (h), (i), (l). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. The fraud provision requires a knowing false statement or a knowing and willful failure to disclose a material fact with intent to defraud, not just an error. For benefit years beginning on or after May 1, 2017, fraud based on unreported earnings requires that the agency have the employer's weekly wage information. The agency may not base a determination solely on a computer-identified discrepancy; an employee must examine the facts and independently decide.

MCL 421.54(b) reaches a person who makes a false statement knowing it to be false, or who knowingly and willfully, with intent to defraud, fails to disclose a material fact, to obtain or increase a benefit. That is a state-of-mind standard. An honest mistake, such as misunderstanding a question or reporting a week incorrectly, is not the same as a knowing falsehood. Two protections are written into the section. First, for benefit years beginning on or after May 1, 2017, to establish fraud based on unreported earnings the agency must have in its possession the weekly wage information from the employer. Second, under subsection (m), the agency shall not make a determination under the section that is based solely on a computer-identified discrepancy in information supplied by the claimant or employer. An agency employee or agent must examine the facts and independently determine that the claimant or employer is responsible for a willful or intentional violation before the agency makes the determination. The enacting section of 2017 PA 226 provides that the amended version applies to original determinations and redeterminations made on or after July 1, 2018, and earlier determinations are processed under the earlier version. A fraud determination is issued in writing, and the notice should state how and by when to protest or appeal; that deadline should be calendared the day the notice is received. The documents that usually matter are the original claim and weekly certifications, pay stubs and bank deposits showing when and how much was earned, the employer's wage reports, and the questions the agency actually asked.

Authority: MCL 421.54(b), (m). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

The state agency can pursue an administrative disqualification hearing, refer the case for prosecution, or collect an overissuance claim. A hearing must find by clear and convincing evidence that the person committed and intended the violation. A finding, a waiver or a consent agreement leads to disqualification: 12 months for a first violation, 24 months for a second and permanent for a third, with longer periods in specific cases. A hearing does not prevent a later prosecution.

The federal SNAP rules (7 CFR 273.16) make the state agency responsible for investigating suspected intentional program violations and acting through an administrative disqualification hearing or a referral for prosecution. The agency is expected to use hearings where the facts do not warrant prosecution, where a referral was declined or where no action was taken within a reasonable time. An intentional program violation means intentionally making a false or misleading statement or misrepresenting, concealing or withholding facts, or committing any act that violates SNAP, its rules or a state statute for the purpose of using, presenting, transferring, acquiring, receiving, possessing or trafficking benefits or EBT cards. At a hearing, the determination must rest on clear and convincing evidence that the household member committed and intended to commit the violation. If the person does not appear without good cause, the hearing official still has to consider the evidence. The disqualification periods are 12 months for the first violation, 24 months for the second and permanent for the third. Longer periods apply where a court finds benefits were used in a drug sale (24 months, then permanent) or in a sale of firearms, ammunition or explosives (permanent), and for a court conviction for trafficking benefits of $500 or more in total (permanent). A finding by a hearing or a court counts, and so does a signed waiver or consent agreement in a case referred for prosecution. The written hearing notice must also say that the hearing does not preclude the State or Federal Government from prosecuting the individual or collecting any overissuance. If the agency does not pursue a violation, it collects an overissuance as an inadvertent household error claim. A signed waiver or consent agreement can lead to a disqualification period, so the paperwork should be reviewed before it is signed.

Authority: 7 CFR 273.16(a)-(c), (e). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Repaying does not erase fraud, and an honest mistake is not fraud, although a failure to report can still be charged without intent to defraud. Unemployment fraud under MCL 421.54 applies even if the amount has been reported or reported and paid. Welfare fraud for a false statement under MCL 400.60(1) requires a willful false statement and, under the model instruction, knowledge and intent to defraud, while the failure-to-report offense in MCL 400.60(2) can be committed by neglect without intent to defraud. Where prosecution is deemed unnecessary, the welfare department can recover the amount plus 5 percent interest instead. For SNAP, if the state agency does not pursue a suspected intentional violation, it collects the overissuance as an inadvertent household error claim.

Three separate points come up. First, the state of mind depends on the program and the charge. Unemployment fraud under MCL 421.54(b) requires a false statement known to be false or a knowing and willful failure to disclose with intent to defraud. Welfare fraud for a false statement under MCL 400.60(1), as the model instruction lays it out, requires a false statement known to be false and an intent to defraud the agency (M Crim JI 34.1). The failure-to-report offense in MCL 400.60(2) is different: the model instruction does not list intent to defraud, and the Court of Appeals has said that a person can be convicted under that subsection whether or not the person intended to withhold the information, because neglect covers a failure to act through intention or culpable carelessness (M Crim JI 34.3; People v Akerley, 73 Mich App 321, 325 (1977)). An overpayment that came from an agency error, a calculation problem or an honest misunderstanding does not meet the false statement definitions on its face, although the agency may still seek repayment through a civil process that is not covered here. Second, repayment is not a defense to unemployment fraud. MCL 421.54(h) says the section applies even if the amount obtained or withheld has been reported or reported and paid. Third, repayment can influence what happens. Under MCL 400.60(1), if someone receives assistance through the listed means and prosecution is deemed unnecessary, the department may take steps to recover the amount plus 5 percent interest per year, so civil recovery is one way a case can be resolved without a prosecution. Under the federal SNAP rule, if the state agency does not initiate a disqualification hearing or refer a suspected intentional program violation for prosecution, it collects the overissuance as an inadvertent household error claim (7 CFR 273.16(a)(1)). Whether to prosecute, pursue a hearing or collect civilly is the agency's and the prosecutor's call. A payment plan or lump sum payment is generally discussed through counsel so that its terms are documented, and written answers to fraud questionnaires or interview requests are part of the record and deserve the same care.

Authority: MCL 421.54(b), (h); MCL 400.60(1), (2); M Crim JI 34.1; M Crim JI 34.3; 7 CFR 273.16(a)(1); People v Akerley, 73 Mich App 321, 325 (1977). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. Under the dual-sovereignty rule, the state and federal governments can each prosecute the same conduct, as the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in Gamble v United States (2019). Federal law makes the unauthorized use of SNAP benefits and the theft of federal program funds federal crimes, and the SNAP rules say an administrative hearing does not prevent the State or Federal Government from prosecuting. Whether a case is handled federally, by the state, administratively or only as a civil collection is up to the agencies and prosecutors involved.

Some benefit programs, such as SNAP, are funded and governed by federal law and run by the states, so one set of facts can draw interest from both levels. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly use, transfer, acquire, alter or possess SNAP benefits in any manner contrary to the program statute or its regulations (7 U.S.C. 2024(b)). The penalty depends on the value of the benefits: a felony with up to 20 years and a fine of up to $250,000 at $5,000 or more; a felony with up to 5 years and a fine of up to $10,000 at $100 or more but under $5,000; and a misdemeanor with up to 1 year and a fine of up to $1,000 under $100. A separate federal statute makes it a crime to embezzle, steal or knowingly convert money or property of the United States, which can reach other federal program payments. It carries up to 10 years, or up to 1 year if the aggregate value is $1,000 or less (18 U.S.C. 641). In Gamble v United States, 587 US 678, 139 S Ct 1960, 1964 (2019), the Supreme Court declined to overturn the dual-sovereignty doctrine and held that a state may prosecute even if the federal government has prosecuted the same conduct. The Michigan Supreme Court holds in People v Davis, 472 Mich 156 (2005), that the Michigan Constitution does not bar a successive prosecution by a separate sovereign, and in doing so it overruled People v Cooper. The SNAP regulation requires the hearing notice to state that the hearing does not preclude the State or Federal Government from prosecuting the individual for the intentional program violation in a civil or criminal court action, or from collecting any overissuance (7 CFR 273.16(e)(3)). Whether a particular case goes to federal court, state court, an administrative hearing or only a civil collection is a decision made by the agencies and prosecutors involved.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2024(b); 18 U.S.C. 641; Gamble v United States, 587 US 678; 139 S Ct 1960, 1964-1965 (2019); People v Davis, 472 Mich 156 (2005); 7 CFR 273.16(e)(3). Reviewed Oct. 2026.