Missouri bill would create broader fraud offense, add $10,000 fines for financial scams

Representative Oler King presented House Bill 707 as a broad fraud-prevention measure intended to give prosecuting attorneys a simpler, more flexible criminal statute to use against evolving financial scams. "House Bill 707 is a fraud prevention overall bill," Oler King told the committee, saying the bill would address a dramatic increase in fraud and scams that affect Missourians.

The sponsor cited FBI figures showing large increases in reported fraud losses and described new technologies — including AI-generated voices used to impersonate family members — that complicate detection and prosecution. The bill would create a new offense in the criminal code to cover financial scams not currently enumerated in statute; the sponsor said it is intended to "future proof" the law. The draft explicitly prohibits prosecutors from stacking the new offense with other charges for the same conduct, the sponsor said.

During questioning, committee members asked about penalties and prosecutorial discretion. The sponsor confirmed that the bill text defines class felonies with a $10,000 fine in the lines cited to the committee. Representative Murray asked whether the bill includes protections for situations involving informal family arrangements or caregiving disputes; the sponsor said he would coordinate with prosecutors and noted a separate trusted-contact proposal is being developed to address some of those concerns.

Emily Lewis, representing the Missouri Bankers Association, testified in support and said member banks have reported statutory gaps that hamper prosecution. "We especially appreciate that this bill would apply to losses incurred by a financial institution, but most importantly, by the customer of a financial institution," Lewis said. Morgan Householder, a registered lobbyist for the Missouri Credit Union Association, also supported the bill, saying credit-union members often bear the financial burden when fraud occurs and that stronger penalties could deter bad actors.

Testimony also referenced implementation costs in the fiscal note. The sponsor and committee discussed an estimated implementation workload that could require one full-time equivalent position to administer aspects of the change in the relevant state agency, per the fiscal estimate presented during the hearing. The hearing record includes supporters from banks and credit unions; no organized opposition testified and the committee did not take a vote during the hearing.