What federal laws and statutes govern prosecution of SNAP fraud cases?
Executive summary
The primary federal law that criminalizes misuse of SNAP benefits is Title 7 U.S.C. § 2024, which makes it unlawful to knowingly use, transfer, acquire, alter, or possess unauthorized SNAP benefits and to present benefits for payment when obtained unlawfully [1] [2] [3]. Enforcement is a mix of USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program controls, criminal investigations by the USDA Office of Inspector General and state partners, and prosecution under federal criminal statutes, with penalties that can include fines, imprisonment, restitution, forfeiture and program disqualification [4] [5] [6].
1. The statutory core: 7 U.S.C. § 2024 — the federal food‑stamp fraud offense
Congress codified SNAP fraud primarily in 7 U.S.C. § 2024, commonly cited as the “food stamp fraud” statute, which makes specified actions involving SNAP benefits a federal crime and frames those offenses around unauthorized use, transfer, acquisition, alteration, possession, or presentation for redemption [1] [2] [3]. That single statutory provision is routinely the foundation for federal charging decisions and is the provision emphasized by defense and prosecution guides that handle SNAP-related cases [1] [7].
2. Mens rea and the line between error and crime
A central element under the federal statute is intent: prosecutors generally must prove the defendant acted “knowingly,” making fraudulent intent a key element of conviction; by contrast, honest mistakes or reporting errors can be treated as non‑criminal mistakes rather than fraud [2] [1]. Congressional and CRS analysis distinguishes “fraud” (intentional wrongdoing) from “errors” (mistakes), and notes that some conduct (like trafficking) is always treated as fraud while other conduct (e.g., duplicate enrollment) may be fraud or error depending on circumstances [5] [8].
3. Trafficking, retailers and regulatory definitions
SNAP trafficking — exchanging benefits for cash or other unauthorized consideration — is singled out for enforcement and is subject to federal trafficking definitions that FNS updated by rule to clarify enforcement expectations and provide tools to states for investigations [4] [9]. FNS materials stress that both recipients and retailers can commit trafficking or other violations, and that retailers who exchange SNAP benefits for cash or accept benefits for non‑allowable items face administrative action and criminal prosecution [4] [6].
4. Who investigates and who prosecutes: federal‑state partnership
Criminal prosecution for significant SNAP fraud typically begins with USDA OIG investigations or state agency referrals, and cases can proceed in federal court when federal statutes apply or are a better fit; state agencies retain administrative and criminal authority for many recipient‑level cases and often refer matters to local prosecutors [5] [4]. FNS and USDA materials document extensive cooperation with state and local law enforcement, EBT processors, and retailers to detect trafficking and other schemes [4] [6].
5. Penalties, remedies and administrative sanctions
Convictions under the federal statute and related charges can carry substantial consequences: fines, imprisonment, restitution to the government, and forfeiture have been described in enforcement and legal guides as potential outcomes, while FNS and state agencies can impose disqualification from SNAP and seek civil recovery of overpayments [1] [3] [4] [10]. FNS publicly reports collection of recipient claims and emphasizes administrative disqualification and criminal prosecution as complementary tools to deter trafficking and fraud [6] [5].
6. Overlapping federal offenses and prosecutorial strategies
Prosecutors sometimes supplement 7 U.S.C. § 2024 charges with other federal statutes such as mail or wire fraud and related statutes when schemes use interstate communications or the mail, because those statutes can carry heavier penalties and broader investigative reach [11] [5]. Defense materials and criminal practice guides note that charging choices often reflect evidentiary strengths—especially proof of intent—and prosecutorial priorities [2] [11].
7. Bigger picture and reporting caveats
SNAP fraud is statistically uncommon relative to program size, payment‑accuracy reviews separate errors from fraud, and FNS/CRS analyses caution that no single data point captures all forms of improper payments or fraud; therefore, legal outcomes hinge on case specifics, whether the act is trafficking, and whether intent can be shown [8] [5]. Reporting indicates that while federal law provides robust criminal and administrative sanctions, much of everyday program integrity work is handled at the state level under federal rules, and available sources do not permit a full catalog of every overlapping statute or state‑by‑state prosecution practice [5] [12].