HR-4169-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would add a new section to the federal criminal code making it a crime to knowingly carry out, or attempt to carry out, a scheme to defraud someone of veterans' benefits, or a scheme to obtain veterans' benefits for that person. The penalty would be a fine, up to 5 years in prison, or both. It would cover any benefit under federal law for a veteran, or a veteran's dependent or survivor.
Who benefits
Veterans, dependents, and survivors who receive federal benefits and could be targeted by fraudulent claim-preparation or benefit-theft schemes. Federal prosecutors, who would gain a statute aimed at this conduct without relying on general mail or wire fraud charges. Honest accredited benefits representatives, who may face less competition from predatory operators. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which may see fewer fraud-tainted claims.
Who is hurt
People convicted under the new section, who would face up to 5 years in prison and fines. Benefits consultants and claim preparers who could face investigation if their fee practices are alleged to be a scheme to defraud, particularly where the line between aggressive and fraudulent practice is unclear. Federal courts, prosecutors, and the Bureau of Prisons, which may bear added caseload and costs. Defendants in cases where existing fraud statutes already apply, who may face overlapping charges.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that veterans are repeatedly targeted by scams, including predatory claim-preparation schemes and theft of benefit payments. They contend a statute written for this conduct gives prosecutors a clearer, more direct tool than general fraud laws, signals the seriousness of the offense, and has bipartisan sponsorship. They also note that the bill's knowing-intent requirement limits it to deliberate schemes.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that existing federal statutes, including mail fraud, wire fraud, and false-claims laws, already cover these schemes, so a new offense adds redundancy rather than new protection. They contend that the broad phrase "in connection with obtaining" benefits could reach good-faith claim assistance, and that adding federal offenses expands incarceration and prosecutorial discretion without evidence it would deter fraud.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on its power to spend for and administer federal benefits, together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, since the benefits are federal programs. Any prosecution would be subject to Fifth Amendment due process, including the vagueness doctrine as in Skilling v. United States (2010), which narrowed the honest-services fraud statute, and Sixth Amendment trial rights. Because the offense involves federal programs, dual-sovereignty principles under Gamble v. United States (2019) would allow separate state prosecution for the same conduct.
Checks and balances
Congress defines the offense and penalty, giving federal prosecutors in the executive branch additional charging discretion, while courts check this through the knowing-intent element, vagueness review, and jury trial requirements.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously created targeted federal fraud offenses, such as the health care fraud statute (18 U.S.C. 1347) enacted in 1996, to supplement general mail and wire fraud laws.