What are common criminal defenses used in SNAP fraud cases?
Executive summary
Defendants in SNAP fraud cases commonly raise defenses that focus on lack of intent, factual mistakes, identity errors, administrative complexity, or challenge the reliability of evidence; prosecutors emphasize trafficking, false statements, and intentional underreporting as criminal under federal law (7 U.S.C. § 2024) [1]. Oversight reports show growing political pressure and wide variation in how fraud is defined and prosecuted—SNAP improper payments were estimated at 11.7% of benefits (~$10.5 billion) for FY2023 in GAO reporting, a statistic that shapes enforcement priorities even as experts dispute the prevalence and causes [2] [3].
1. Intent vs. mistake — the central legal fault line
Criminal SNAP charges rest on intentional wrongdoing, so defense lawyers commonly argue the client lacked the requisite intent: misreporting income was inadvertent, documentation was misunderstood, or benefits were used by an authorized household member rather than the defendant (available sources do not mention specific case examples of these defenses). Federal guidance and statutes, however, treat conduct such as providing false information or underreporting income as criminal when intentional—an assertion attorneys must rebut [1].
2. Identity and authorization defenses — “not my card” claims and EBT theft
Many defendants assert identity theft or that their EBT card was accessed without their consent; states and advocates have documented increasing EBT thefts and electronic skimming, which complicates simple criminal narratives [4]. Federal replacement authority for electronically stolen benefits changed recently, raising stakes for victims and muddying whether a person accused of trafficking actually profited from deliberate misuse or was the victim of electronic theft [4] [5].
3. Administrative complexity and errors — fighting prosecution with program rules
SNAP is jointly run by states and USDA, and program complexity creates room to argue that alleged “fraud” is really a paperwork error, state agency mistake, or misunderstanding of eligibility rules [6]. Advocates and researchers warn that the line between recipient error and recipient fraud is not always clear; defense counsel often use Quality Control and administrative records to show errors originated at the agency level [6].
4. Evidence challenges — contesting data analytics and trafficking proofs
Prosecutors increasingly rely on data analytics and transaction patterns to detect trafficking and IPV (Intentional Program Violation); defense teams challenge the validity of those analytics, the provenance of transaction records, and chain-of-custody for EBT data [7] [2]. The GAO and policy reviews note growing investment in analytics to find improper payments, which defense attorneys argue can produce false positives if models are imperfect [2] [7].
5. Civil remedies, CMPs and retail-focused defenses
When retailers are accused, the government can pursue civil money penalties (CMPs) and disqualification instead of—or alongside—criminal prosecution; retailers defend by contesting intent, compliance efforts, or by negotiating CMPs to avoid disqualification [8]. Retail legal strategies differ markedly from recipient defenses because the statutory framework and remedies for retailers emphasize program integrity actions and administrative penalties [8].
6. Political context alters prosecutorial posture — pressure to “protect taxpayers”
Recent political messaging from USDA leadership and members of Congress has framed SNAP enforcement as a top priority, with calls for tougher rules such as photo EBT cards; this rhetoric increases prosecutorial appetite and can shift administrative practices toward more aggressive investigations [3] [9]. Critics say officials conflate fraud with payment errors and that emphasis on “massive fraud” has been asserted without public data, creating risk of overreach in enforcement [3].
7. Remedies and penalties defendants face — criminal and administrative exposure
When intent is found, consequences include criminal prosecution, fines, prison, disqualification, and restitution; USDA and state partners emphasize that intentional acts like trafficking or lying on applications carry severe penalties [10] [1]. GAO and policy research frames the scale of improper payments as driving stricter enforcement, which in turn raises sentencing and collateral consequences for defendants [2] [11].
8. Competing viewpoints and reporting limits — fraud rates vs. program errors
Policy researchers and GAO report rising improper payment rates and substantial estimated losses—figures that bolster advocates for stricter enforcement—while others caution that many problematic payments are errors, not intentional fraud, and that aggregated statistics do not capture intent [2] [6] [11]. Available sources do not provide case-level outcomes or comprehensive catalogs of successful defenses; they instead describe trends, legal frameworks, and administrative responses (available sources do not mention specific acquittal rates or defense success statistics).
Limitations: reporting cited here draws on federal statutes, GAO oversight, policy analyses, and advocacy and news accounts; it cannot substitute for jurisdiction-specific criminal-law advice. For a person facing charges, local counsel should analyze evidence, administrative records, and possible identity-theft or error defenses in light of the frameworks described above [1] [2] [6].