S-3798-119
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S5207; text: CR S5207)
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would add a new section (18 U.S.C. § 2113A) to federal law creating specific criminal offenses for crimes involving ATMs. It would establish penalties for: robbing or extorting ATM users or service workers (up to 20 years); breaking into or stealing from an ATM (up to 10 years if over $1,000, up to 1 year if under $1,000); receiving or concealing stolen ATM proceeds; assaulting someone during an ATM crime (up to 25 years); and killing or forcibly abducting someone in connection with an ATM offense (up to 30 years, or any term including life if death results). The bill covers all network-connected ATMs linked to banks, credit unions, or savings and loan associations, regardless of whether the ATM is on a financial institution's physical premises.
Who benefits
ATM users who may gain stronger federal deterrence and prosecution options for crimes committed against them. ATM service and maintenance workers, cash transport and delivery personnel, and ATM owners and operators who would receive explicit federal protection. Financial institutions and independent ATM operators whose property would be covered. Prosecutors who would gain a dedicated federal statute rather than relying on existing bank robbery or general theft laws. Communities in areas where ATM crimes are concentrated, including urban neighborhoods and areas with high foot traffic around standalone ATMs.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted under the new statute, who would face federal rather than state prosecution — generally resulting in longer sentences and no parole in the federal system. Public defenders and the federal court system, which would absorb additional caseload. State and local law enforcement agencies, which may see jurisdiction shift toward federal authorities. Taxpayers who fund federal incarceration, which costs significantly more per inmate than state systems. Defendants who might otherwise have resolved cases at the state level with shorter sentences or greater access to diversion programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that existing federal bank robbery law (18 U.S.C. § 2113) was written before standalone ATMs existed and does not clearly cover machines located off bank premises, creating a gap that leaves ATM crimes subject only to inconsistent state-level prosecution. They contend that ATM robberies are a distinct and growing threat — particularly to service workers and cash transport personnel — and that a dedicated federal statute with graduated penalties proportional to harm would provide both clearer deterrence and more consistent justice outcomes across jurisdictions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that ATM theft and robbery are already prosecutable under existing state criminal codes and that federalizing these offenses adds little deterrent value while expanding the federal prison population and its associated costs. They contend that the bill's broad jurisdictional reach — covering any network-connected ATM regardless of location — could sweep in minor property offenses that are better handled at the state level, and that mandatory federal prosecution removes the flexibility that local prosecutors use to tailor outcomes to individual circumstances and community needs.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to criminalize ATM-related offenses rests on the Commerce Clause, as the bill's definition of "ATM" is explicitly tied to network-connected machines linked to federally regulated financial institutions (banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations). No active constitutional tension area is directly implicated, though the Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle — relevant to mandatory minimums and sentencing ranges — could be raised in future challenges to specific penalty provisions.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch creates the new offenses and sets penalty ranges; the executive branch (DOJ/U.S. Attorneys) retains prosecutorial discretion over which cases to bring federally; federal courts apply the statute and review constitutional challenges, including any Eighth Amendment proportionality claims.
Historical precedent
The federal bank robbery statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113), enacted in 1934 and expanded over time, serves as the direct structural model for this bill and has been consistently upheld under the Commerce Clause as applied to federally insured institutions.