Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elder Financial Exploitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee unanimously advances substitute to let seized assets be returned to exploited adults during prosecutions
Summary
The Courts of Justice subcommittee voted 7-0 to report a substitute for HB 2120 that clarifies seizure and forfeiture procedures for cases of financial exploitation of vulnerable adults and allows certain seized property to be returned to victims upon a guilty plea or finding of fact sufficient.
The Courts of Justice subcommittee on [date not specified] voted 7-0 to report a substitute for House Bill 2120, a measure aimed at protecting assets of elderly and other vulnerable adults who are victims of financial exploitation.
The substitute, reported to members by committee counsel, aligns seizure and forfeiture procedures for this offense with existing statutes used for money-laundering cases and includes two departures from current law: it allows service of process to be satisfied by certified mail, and it requires that “any money, equipment, motor vehicles, and other personal or real property that was seized in the course of the prosecution for this offense shall be returned to the vulnerable adult or his estate upon a plea of guilty or finding a fact sufficient,” rather than automatically forfeiting seized items to the Commonwealth.
The change is intended to address a practical problem raised by law enforcement and victims’ advocates: investigators sometimes learn of suspected exploitation only after a victim’s assets have already been drained. Delegate Elizabeth Maldonado, the bill’s patron, told the subcommittee that the substitute “would help protect those assets while the investigation goes on and continues so that at the end, if appropriately determined, those assets will be available to the person.”
Representatives from local government and financial institutions testified in favor. Elizabeth Parker of Trauma and Strategies, speaking on behalf of Arlington County, thanked the patron and noted Detective Tim Parsons was available online to answer technical questions. A representative of the Virginia Bankers Association told the panel the bill “matches up with the existing ones that we have to follow [for] anti-money-laundering” and said banks welcome procedures that are “easy for the banks to follow.”
Committee counsel said stakeholders worked with staff on the substitute and described it as a short, targeted change that “more closely mimics the existing statutes that we have related to seizure and forfeiture law,” while noting the two exceptions for service by certified mail and for return of seized property upon certain outcomes in prosecution.
Votes and next steps: The subcommittee moved and seconded the substitute and reported HB 2120 with the substitute by roll call, 7-0. The substitute as described will accompany the bill as it proceeds through the legislative process.
The subcommittee discussion emphasized the bill’s goal of preserving limited retirement and savings assets while investigations are pending and the need to give law enforcement tools that align with existing forfeiture practices.
