Latest news with #SenateBill560
San Francisco Chronicle
03-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
In leaked memo, Alameda County prosecutors call office's approach to welfare fraud ‘extortion'
A pair of Alameda County prosecutors in the welfare fraud unit said their office practiced a form of 'extortion' in these cases, leveraging the fear of criminal charges to collect money from suspects. In an internal memo obtained by the Chronicle, the prosecutors said problems had arisen after the district attorney's office, in 2021, assumed responsibility for probing public-assistance fraud allegations, a task previously handled by the county's social services agency. Now, special investigators employed by the office look for evidence of intentional deception by welfare recipients, and can submit cases to prosecutors for charging decisions. But the memo authors said the investigators ran afoul of California law by implicitly — and sometimes explicitly — threatening the possibility of charges, while at the same time urging interviewees to make repayments. California law defines extortion as obtaining property through wrongful force or fear, including by threatening to accuse someone of a crime. By acting in these dual roles, the welfare fraud investigators are 'wading into the territory of criminal extortion,' attorneys Alexandra Grayner and Simona Farrise Best wrote in the Feb. 24 memo to newly appointed District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, who is serving in the wake of former DA Pamela Price's recall in November. A spokesperson for the district attorney's office declined to comment and did not respond to a list of emailed questions. The memo's authors also declined to comment. Farrise Best, who was part of Price's leadership team, no longer works for the office, and Grayner was transferred to another unit. The complaint represents a fresh tension in the arena of welfare fraud, which has long divided California officials. Some have favored punishment to root out cheating in programs like CalFresh and CalWORKS, while others see reports of fraud as overblown, perpetuating stereotypes of poor Black and Latino residents. A newly proposed law, Senate Bill 560, would make it far more difficult to charge the crime, raising the minimum alleged fraud eligible for a felony to $25,000 and erasing penalties altogether for attempted welfare fraud. Shawn Ferris, vice president of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association, which opposes the bill, disagreed with the memo authors' argument that the practices by investigators described in Alameda County amounted to extortion. 'Advising them to get on a repayment plan is actually helping them, not hurting them,' he said. 'The prosecutor is going to make a decision one way or another.' Ferris said that in lower-level fraud cases, 'if you get them to repay, they're not going to do criminal time anyway. The criminal process may not necessarily be the best one, but every case is different.' Jeff Chorney, an Alameda County public defender who has long represented clients charged with welfare fraud, said the criminal justice system is the wrong place to enforce debt collection. The government has other means of recouping money that doesn't involve prosecution, which can be traumatizing, Chorney said. 'My clients that were charged with welfare fraud are among the most vulnerable people in our population,' Chorney said. 'They're, by definition, people who don't have very much money, don't have stable housing, don't have stable childcare, and now they're being criminally prosecuted because of what, in my mind, usually were paperwork mistakes or misunderstandings.' The memo raises fundamental questions about how welfare fraud is approached. Across California, investigations are handled at the county level, typically through the local agencies that distribute welfare benefits. This is the case in counties including San Francisco and San Mateo, whose investigators work for social services and forward cases of alleged fraud to district attorneys' offices for review, according to officials with those offices. But some counties' social services agencies, including those in Alameda, Contra Costa and Orange, contract out welfare fraud investigations — often to district attorney's offices. A spokesperson for the California Department of Social Services said 22 of the state's 58 counties conduct welfare fraud investigations through DA's offices. The arrangement in Alameda County is based on a 2021 memorandum of understanding that transferred the role of probing welfare fraud allegations to criminal investigators at the DA's office, which would receive $4 million a year to pay for staff and other costs. In a letter recommending the move, former District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and former Social Services Agency Director Lori Cox said it would allow social services staff to focus on providing benefits. Their successors, Price and current Social Services Agency Director Andrea Ford, signed onto the same memorandum in April 2023. According to the memo's authors, the unit investigates about $1 million a year of potential fraud. As an incentive, California pays counties back 12.5% of the funds they recover. Common types of welfare fraud include recipients reporting that a parent is absent when they are actually living in the home; failing to report income; and claiming ineligible children as dependents, according to the Public Assistance Fraud Unit at the Orange County District Attorney's Office. But while the Alameda County DA's office conducts hundreds of welfare fraud investigations a year, few if any charges were filed under Price, a progressive who was in office from early 2023 until her recall, sources familiar with the matter told the Chronicle. It was not immediately clear how often cases were charged under previous administrations, or whether they have started again under the new district attorney. In their memo to Jones Dickson, the authors said that most of the investigators' referrals for potential prosecution lacked evidence of an intent to defraud, and that the others could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Lisa Newstrom, a managing attorney for the legal assistance nonprofit Bay Area Legal Aid, said many cases referred to investigators are the result of simple human error or a misunderstanding of a system 'more complex than filing taxes.' She said it can be difficult to reach a social service worker to ask a question. An 800 number used by Alameda County is frequently out of service, and those who get through may wait on hold for hours. 'For most folks, they just take their best guess, and sometimes they guess right and sometimes they guess wrong,' Newstrom said. 'When they guess wrong, we treat it automatically as intentional fraud, when in most cases it's just doing your best to try and navigate a really complicated system without the help you need.' Grayner and Farrise Best spent much of their memo laying out what they argued was the inherent conflict in investigators seeking money. Citing transcripts of phone calls and case reports, they said investigators told interviewees that they needed to pay back their debt or confirm they had entered into a repayment plan. In some of the same conversations, investigators alluded to or explicitly mentioned the prospect of a criminal case, the authors said. For some, a call from a prosecutor's office over a debt was enough to instill fear, with interviewees stating they wanted to stay out of trouble and not go to jail. In the more explicit conversations, the memo said, investigators said they were preparing a report for prosecutors, or said it's possible to 'order an arrest for one not paying the bill.' In one cited audio recording, an investigator told a person that prosecutors would 'decide whether or not they feel there have been any criminal issues,' and added, 'It works in your favor that you're at least acknowledging it and making an effort to make payments. But like I said, that's totally their call.' Whether those under investigation are guilty or legitimately owe money is irrelevant, the memo authors said, because the threat of criminal prosecution cannot be used as a means of collecting debt. Ferris, of the welfare fraud investigators association, said he didn't see a distinction between investigators who worked for social services agencies versus district attorney's offices. Both, he noted, report their findings to prosecutors. 'They're going to be asked to pay the money back one way or another,' he said. 'The difference is the level of accountability.' Jennifer Turner, an American Civil Liberties Union researcher, called the practice described in the Alameda County memo a 'clear conflict of interest.' Turner, who authored a 2018 report examining partnerships between prosecutors, judges and private debt collectors, said, 'This is a way of using the criminal justice system to terrorize people into paying debts, even when they haven't committed a crime that's worthy of prosecution.' In the prosecutors' memo, the authors urged Jones Dickson to adopt a list of recommendations that they said would 'cease extortionist practices' in the unit. The guidelines would prevent investigators from discussing a repayment plan, or alternatively downgrade the unit to only pursue cases in a civil manner.
Daily Mail
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
California Dem introduces bizarre new bill that would effectively legalize welfare fraud under $25,000
A California Democrat has introduced a new bill which would decriminalize certain welfare fraud under $25,000. Los Angeles Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas proposed new legislation which would raise the threshold for prosecution of welfare fraud enacted due to administrative errors. Senate Bill 560 also seeks to axe prosecutions for attempted welfare fraud amounting to less than $950. 'The bill would require a county human services agency to determine whether benefits were authorized as a result of an error in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS) and prohibit the agency from referring a case for criminal action if benefits were authorized in error,' the proposal reads. 'This bill is about keeping families out of the criminal justice system from making administrative errors on raising the threshold for welfare fraud prosecutions,' Smallwood-Cuevas said. Currently, welfare fraud is criminalized at any amount, but below $950 is considered a misdemeanor while any amount above is a felony. ' California 's safety net should lift families up, not trap them in poverty,' the lawmaker added in a statement to Fox News Digital. 'Right now, a missed deadline or paperwork mistake can lead to felony charges that tear families apart — even when there's no intent to deceive.' However, around 8,000 welfare fraud cases are identified in Los Angeles County alone each year, according to the county's Department of Public Services. Of these around 200 are referred for prosecution, with a 95 percent conviction rate. Most of the convicted cases will have a court-order to pay the county back. Smallwood-Cuevas' critics believe softening the laws on prosecution could lead to increased fraud. The most common forms of welfare fraud uncovered by LA DPS' investigations are, an absent parent in the home, unreported income, lying about the number of children in the home and claims which originate from outside the county, according to the agency. SB560 passed the Senate Human Services Committee earlier this month and is scheduled for a hearing on May 5. has contacted Smallwood-Cuevas for comment. Welfare fraud is among the areas being tackled by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. The Tesla boss previously revealed staggering data showing there are millions of dead Americans still eligible for social security payments. Musk posted a chart on X showing that there are more than 20 million Americans listed over the age of 100, including 3.9 million in the 130-139 range, more than 3.5 million aged 140-149 and more than 1.3 million in the range 150-159. There was even an 'alive' citizen aged over 360, according to the records. In one shocking case, DOGE said they found someone with a birthday in 2154 who claimed $41,000 in benefits. Musk shared the findings on his X account, claiming he was so stunned by the numbers it took him multiple times to grasp the information. 'Your tax dollars were going to pay fraudulent unemployment claims for fake people born in the future,' Musk said. 'This is so crazy that I had to read it several times before it sank in.'
Newsweek
29-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
California Proposes Decriminalizing Welfare Fraud
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California lawmakers have introduced a proposal that would decriminalize certain forms of welfare fraud. Why It Matters The proposal to decriminalize small-scale welfare fraud in California highlights a broader debate about how the justice system should handle low-level financial offenses, particularly those involving vulnerable populations. Supporters argue that many alleged fraud cases stem from administrative mistakes rather than deliberate wrongdoing, and that criminalizing errors as minor as $25 disproportionately harms low-income individuals. Opponents, however, warn that loosening penalties could encourage broader abuse of public assistance programs and undermine public trust in government services. The legislation comes at a politically sensitive time, as Democrats nationally face criticism from Republicans and some centrist voters for being perceived as softer on crime. Critics argue that measures like this could reinforce those perceptions and become potent talking points in future elections. However, the proposal comes at a time where the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established by President Donald Trump and led by Elon Musk, has been set up to investigate possible fraud taking place in government agencies and having welfare agencies take the administration into their own hands is in many ways what DOGE was set up to do. State Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, D-Los Angeles, listens to the discussion of a bill at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, June 1, 2023. State Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, D-Los Angeles, listens to the discussion of a bill at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, June 1, 2023. Rich Pedroncelli/AP What To Know California lawmakers are considering a proposal that would decriminalize certain types of welfare fraud under $25,000, according to Fox News. Introduced by Democratic State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Senate Bill 560 aims to eliminate criminal penalties for welfare overpayments stemming from administrative errors or minor infractions. The legislation, introduced in February, seeks to shift the handling of such cases from the criminal justice system to local welfare agencies. Under SB 560, individuals would not face criminal charges for overpayments under $25,000 if the errors were determined to result from administrative mistakes, such as issues in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS). The bill also proposes eliminating criminal penalties for attempted welfare fraud involving less than $950. "This bill is about keeping families out of the criminal justice system for making administrative errors," the senator wrote in an April 8 Instagram post. "It offers a smarter, more humane approach by allowing counties to resolve most overpayment cases administratively, holding people accountable without criminalizing poverty." However, the proposal has raised concerns among critics who argue it could weaken deterrents against fraud. According to the California Department of Social Services, common types of welfare fraud include failing to report income, listing ineligible or non-resident children on aid applications, and concealing the presence of another parent in the household. In Los Angeles County alone, investigators review 15,000 to 20,000 welfare fraud referrals annually, identifying fraud in about 5,000 to 8,000 cases. Of those, approximately 200 cases are referred to the district attorney's office, with a 95 percent conviction rate. What People Are Saying Lola Smallwood-Cuevas told Fox News Digital: "California's safety net should lift families up, not trap them in poverty. Right now, a missed deadline or paperwork mistake can lead to felony charges that tear families apart—even when there's no intent to deceive." What Happens Next The legislation is set for a hearing on May 5.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Don't taste the rainbow: New Florida bill looks to ban Skittles and other tasty treats
A new bill being proposed in Florida could ban Skittles and other treats containing certain chemical additives. State Senator Jonathan Martin introduced Senate Bill 560 last week, according to Some of the banned additives include Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, and Blue 1. Both of the food dyes are used in Skittles, its website states. Those two ingredients are used in a number of sweets, cereals, soft drinks, and other food items, according to the FDA. The agency has approved the ingredients, but according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Yellow 5 can prompt hyperactivity in some children while Blue 1 includes a small risk of cancer. The bill also prohibits the use of the synthetic food dye Red 3, which was banned by the FDA last month. That measure came after lab rats exposed to the substance developed cancer. While the FDA stated that the way Red 3 prompted cancer to grow in the rats doesn't occur in humans, they still ordered manufacturers to remove it from their products by January 2027. 'Some chemicals cause cancer. They have no place in our food,' Martin wrote on X on February 10. 'Period.' The bill also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in drinks to stabilize fruit flavoring — it was banned by the FDA in 2024. Potassium bromate is another chemical banned by the proposed legislation. It's used to strengthen dough and make bread whiter. Banned in the European Union and some countries because it causes cancer in rats, researchers have stated that it's not harmful to humans. Propylparaben would also be banned under the bill. It's used as a preservative in drugs, cosmetics, and food. Artificial food dyes Red dye 3, Blue dye 1 and Yellow dye 5, which are found in common candies, energy drinks and savory snacks, could also go. The legislation also prohibits the use of Butylated hydroxyanisole. It's used as an antioxidant and a preservative in cosmetics, food, and drugs. Similarly, Butylated hydroxytoluene is used as an antioxidant in foods with fats. In 2023, California became the first state to ban BVO potassium bromate, propylparaben, and red dye 3, handing producers a deadline of 2027 to remove the ingredients from their products. The Florida legislation would ban Skittles in its current state, but the candy may not go away. The European Union and some countries have imposed restrictions on additives, but Skittles simply swapped their ingredients with safer options, meaning that the candies could stay on the market. The Florida bill, SB 560, would give food producers until January 1, 2028 to remove the additives. If it's approved, the legislation would go into effect on July 1 of this year. If the companies don't remove the additives, they could face significant fines under the legislation. There is no evidence that the bill is related to Trayvon Martin's death in 2012. Skittles became a flag for those protesting against the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator in Sanford, Florida, who fatally shot 17-year-old Martin, claiming self-defense, as the teen was visiting his father. Martin, who was Black and unarmed, was carrying a bag of skittles he'd just bought from a nearby 7-Eleven
