Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elder Theft Enhancement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears SB 50 to add theft to sentencing and civil penalties for crimes against seniors and vulnerable people
Summary
SB 50 would add theft to the list of offenses eligible for sentencing enhancements when the victim is age 60 or older or otherwise vulnerable, and would add theft to a list of crimes subject to a civil penalty; supporters say it protects seniors from scams, opponents want an intent element to ensure defendants knowingly targeted elderly victims.
The Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee heard SB 50 on Tuesday, a bill from the Attorney General's Office that would add theft to the list of offenses eligible for sentencing enhancements when the victim is 60 years of age or older or otherwise vulnerable, and would add theft to the list of crimes subject to civil penalties.
Alyssa Engler, Chief Deputy Attorney General in the Criminal Division, told the committee the Attorney General prioritizes consumer protection and that the office receives hundreds of complaints a year about frauds that target older or otherwise vulnerable people. "Section 1 of this bill amends NRS 193.167 to add theft to the list of crimes where a sentencing enhancement can be added if the crime was committed against a person 60 years of age or older or a vulnerable person," Engler said. The bill also would amend NRS 228.28 to permit a civil penalty in appropriate cases.
Supporters argued the measure would give prosecutors an additional tool to punish and deter fraudsters who target seniors. Jennifer Noble, representing the Nevada District Attorney's Association, testified in support and thanked the Attorney General's Office for proposing the change. Donna Clontz, speaking as an individual and a former prosecutor, said seniors often cannot recoup losses and therefore need additional statutory protections.
Opponents, including public defenders, urged the committee to add a knowledge or intent element. "The enhancement should have an intent element," Washoe County Public Defender Angela Knott testified. Knott warned that theft statutes do not require knowledge of a victim's identity or age; examples such as receiving stolen property or taking misdelivered mail could trigger the enhancement under the bill as written even if the defendant had no awareness of the victim's age or vulnerability.
Committee members asked several clarifying questions. Some senators noted that existing statutory thresholds and theft classifications (misdemeanor versus felony based on dollar amounts) might interact with the enhancement; Engler said the bill is intended to allow an enhancement whether the underlying theft is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. "If an individual loses $200 through a scam, and that's only charged as a misdemeanor, then the defendant would be eligible for an enhancement," Engler told the committee.
Senator Ellison raised concerns about dollar thresholds and fairness, saying theft is theft regardless of the value. Senator Hansen suggested coordination with other pending bills that add oversight or preventive measures at financial institutions. Opponents said an enhancement without a requirement that a defendant knowingly targeted an elderly or vulnerable person could sweep in innocent conduct; they proposed amendments requiring proof that the defendant selected a victim because of age or vulnerability.
The committee took no vote on SB 50 at the hearing and concluded the public testimony record after in‑room and phone testimony. Sponsors and opponents indicated willingness to continue working on language, including potential amendments to add a knowledge or motive element to the enhancement.
No fiscal note or precise statewide cost estimate was presented during the hearing.
