Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S183 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutors back narrower fraud standard for home-improvement cases, say many disputes are civil
Summary
State prosecutors told the House Judiciary Committee that amended language in S183 adding intent/knowledge elements will help criminal prosecutions of clear fraud, but most consumer complaints remain contract disputes better suited to civil remedies.
Prosecutors told the House Judiciary Committee on April 2 that narrowing the criminal statute for home-improvement fraud in S183 is a practical step toward prosecuting clear fraud while recognizing that many homeowner complaints are civil contract disputes.
Kim McManis of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs summarized recent amendments that add a knowing-intent element to prosecutions under S183 and said the change responds to superior-court rulings that raised constitutional concerns. McManis cautioned the committee that the amendment is not a complete solution because a large proportion of cases involve post-contract disagreements rather than early, clear intent to defraud.
Erica Marthage, a state’s attorney who handles home-improvement fraud matters, described the caseload her office reviews: about six to eight referrals in a six-month period, of which she said roughly 80% do not meet the criminal statute for home-improvement fraud. She described “clear-cut” cases — a contractor who takes a deposit and never shows up, or who supplied shoddy work with an apparent intent to deceive — that prosecutors can pursue, and contrasted them with lengthy, document-heavy cases that are essentially contract disputes and therefore not appropriate for criminal prosecution.
"We probably review... between six and eight in a six-month period. Of those 80% of them are not being charged as home improvement fraud," Marthage told the committee. She and McManis both said the amended language in S183 would help prosecutors focus on the most culpable conduct.
Committee members and prosecutors agreed the criminal system alone cannot make victims whole in many of these matters and recommended exploring civil remedies or regulatory changes (licensing, consumer protections, registries) to reduce repeat offenders and prevent harm.
Ending: Prosecutors supported the S183 amendments as a constructive tightening of the law that should allow criminal charges in clearly fraudulent cases, while urging complementary civil and regulatory measures to address the many disputes that are essentially contract claims.
