Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Misappropriation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reports bill targeting misappropriation of tenant utility payments after contentious debate over corporate liability
Summary
House Bill 6, aimed at creating a criminal offense for misappropriating tenant utility payments, was reported as amended after the committee removed racketeering and forfeiture provisions; district attorneys and law-enforcement witnesses cautioned the statute may not solve enforcement problems tied to corporate veils.
House Bill 6, sponsored by Rep. Jackson, would create an offense for misappropriating funds paid for utility services by tenants or residents when property managers or companies fail to remit those funds to providers. On May 14, 2025, the Criminal Justice Committee adopted amendments to align penalties with the general theft statute and removed proposed racketeering and asset-forfeiture provisions; the amended bill was reported favorably but drew objections from prosecutors and industry groups.
Rep. Jackson told the committee the measure responds to a pattern in Caddo Parish and other localities where tenants paid utilities via rent or master-meter arrangements but the managing company allegedly pocketed funds, leaving residents without service. He said warrants had been issued in at least one case but argued criminal tools are necessary to hold corporate actors accountable.
Zach Daniels of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association told the committee piercing the corporate veil remains the central investigative challenge: prosecutors must gather evidence that a named individual acted with criminal intent, not merely that an LLC failed to remit funds. Daniels suggested alternate approaches — licensing, municipal bonds, or contractor‑fraud models — could provide practical remedies in many cases.
Opponents, including the Apartment Association and property-industry witnesses, warned the bill’s earlier drafts would expand criminal exposure for low-level employees and widen the universe of defendants to include clerks and leasing agents. The committee’s adopted amendments removed the bill’s inclusion as a racketeering predicate and removed an asset‑forfeiture directive; Rep. Jackson said the sponsor sought to address concerns and focus on knowingly wrongful conduct by managers.
The committee reported the bill as amended; members noted additional drafting work may be needed to ensure the statute targets bad actors without criminalizing employees who make honest errors.
