Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unemployment Fraud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances RS to toughen unemployment-fraud penalties and add identity-theft restitution
Summary
A measure presented by Representative Laurie McCann would standardize definitions of "knowingly" and "willfully," increase disqualification periods for repeat unemployment-fraud determinations, and create a restitution option for identity-theft victims; the Department of Labor estimates modest first-year savings.
Representative Laurie McCann presented RS 31,824 on behalf of the Idaho Department of Labor to tighten penalties for fraudulent unemployment insurance claims, clarify key legal definitions and add a new identity-theft restitution provision.
McCann said the bill would apply existing statutory language for “knowingly” across the unemployment chapter, move the definition of “willfully” from administrative rule into statute, raise the disqualification period for repeat fraud determinations and add criminal classifications aligned with theft statutes. The bill also adds a definition of identity theft and authorizes restitution of $1,000 to a victim when a stolen identity is used to obtain benefits, McCann said.
The department provided a fiscal estimate that the proposed changes would save roughly $152,000 to the unemployment trust fund in the first year and about $12,000 in future years, reflecting fewer benefit payments to repeat fraudsters, McCann said.
Director Janie Rivera, Idaho Department of Labor, told the committee that the definitions of “knowingly” and “willfully” already appear in related statutes or rules and the bill would consolidate and apply them consistently within the chapter. Rivera explained the department’s distinction between fraud and non-fraud overpayments: non-fraud overpayments (for example, genuine mistakes like misreporting gross vs. net wages) are education opportunities and require repayment but not fraud findings, while deliberate misstatements can trigger fraud findings and penalties. Rivera outlined the appeals path for claimants: department appeals bureau, then the Industrial Commission, and finally the Idaho Supreme Court.
Representative Achilles raised concerns that some changes could create effectively permanent ineligibility in certain circumstances, and asked for clarity about whether the drafting could catch honest mistakes. Rivera said the drafters intended a one-year penalty per fraud occurrence (one year for first fraud, two years for second, etc.) and that a lifetime bar would occur only in limited circumstances under current law. Several representatives asked for more precise examples and legal definitions at public hearing; Rivera and McCann agreed to provide those clarifications when the bill returns for hearing.
The committee voted to introduce RS 31,824; the motion passed and the bill will be printed and scheduled for a public hearing.
Ending: McCann said the measure responds to requests from the U.S. Department of Labor to reduce harms to identity-theft victims and to strengthen penalties for repeat fraud, and that the department expects implementation questions to be addressed during the public hearing process.
