How do states determine criminal vs civil charges for SNAP fraud?
Executive summary
States generally treat SNAP fraud either as administrative/civil violations (Intentional Program Violations, civil money penalties, suspensions/disqualifications) or refer cases to prosecutors for criminal charges; whether a case becomes civil or criminal depends on factors like the amount trafficked, evidence of intentional conduct, and prosecutorial discretion (examples: CMP options, IPV hearings, criminal referral processes) [1] [2] [3]. Federal law sets monetary thresholds that trigger criminal exposure—trafficking over $5,000 is routinely pursued as a federal crime and civil fines/CMPs can reach six figures for retailers—while agencies and state prosecutors handle lower-value or administrative matters through IPV hearings and CMP offers [4] [5] [6].
1. How the system is split: administrative vs. criminal
SNAP enforcement operates on parallel tracks: the program’s administrative arm (state agencies working with USDA/FNS) pursues Intentional Program Violations, civil money penalties (CMPs), temporary or permanent disqualification, and administrative hearings; separate criminal investigations and prosecutions are handled by local or federal prosecutors when evidence suggests a crime [1] [2] [7]. Agencies routinely refer suspicious matters to district attorneys or federal prosecutors; if prosecutors decline, the matter often stays in the civil/administrative stream [2].
2. What makes a case “criminal” in practice
Prosecutors look for evidence of intent and scale. Large-scale trafficking—commonly cited as trafficking over $5,000—triggers federal criminal statutes and can lead to indictments, fines, and prison time; the Southern District of New York indictment described a scheme that moved more than $66 million and resulted in criminal charges and an unsealed superseding indictment [4] [8]. State or federal criminal charges are more likely when the facts show organized misconduct, theft, bribery, or falsified documents beyond simple mistakes [8] [2].
3. The civil alternatives and why they matter to retailers
USDA and FNS offer civil remedies such as CMPs and the option—on a tight timeline—to request a CMP in lieu of permanent disqualification; retailers have short procedural windows (often 10 days from a trafficking charge letter) to seek CMP relief and thereby avoid program loss, though they risk large fines up to six figures depending on the offense [9] [3] [6]. Law firms and defense blogs note that retailers can sometimes continue accepting EBT during appeals if they timely request CMPs, but must document compliance training and other mitigating evidence to qualify [9] [10].
4. Monetary thresholds and statutory backstop
Federal statutory penalties provide a clear backstop: criminal exposure scales with the dollar value of benefits trafficked—misdemeanor penalties for small values and increasingly severe felonies as amounts increase; sources note ranges (e.g., under $100 misdemeanor, $100–$5,000 up to five years, over $5,000 exposure to the most serious penalties), and practitioners point to $5,000 as a practical marker for federal criminal pursuit [5] [4]. These statutory amounts shape prosecutorial decisions and the choice between civil remedies and criminal charges [4] [5].
5. Who decides and why discretion matters
State agencies initiate investigations and can impose administrative sanctions, but criminal charging rests with prosecutors—district attorneys or the U.S. Attorney—who weigh evidence, public-interest factors, and resource priorities; if prosecutors decline, the agency proceeds administratively [2] [7]. This creates variation across states and cases: similar conduct can lead to civil penalties in one jurisdiction and criminal indictment in another, depending on local enforcement priorities [2] [11].
6. Real-world enforcement trends and scale
Recent public prosecutions show the system targeting organized schemes as well as insider-assisted fraud—e.g., the SDNY matter that alleged internal USDA employee involvement in a $66 million fraud—demonstrating prosecutors prioritize large, organized, or corrupt schemes for criminal charges [8]. Meanwhile, program materials emphasize that intentional recipient fraud and trafficking are taken seriously and may lead to criminal prosecution, reinforcing a deterrence posture across administrative and criminal channels [1].
7. Limitations in the reporting and alternative views
Available sources document the referral path, CMP process, prosecutorial thresholds, and high-profile criminal cases, but they do not provide a comprehensive state-by-state rulebook or empirical rates comparing how often similar conduct is resolved civilly versus criminally; available sources do not mention granular statistics showing the share of referrals that become criminal prosecutions versus administrative dispositions [2] [3]. Defense-oriented outlets stress procedural windows and defense strategies; government FNS materials stress deterrence and prosecution—both perspectives reflect institutional incentives (protect program integrity vs. avoid overcriminalization) [10] [1].
Takeaway: whether SNAP fraud is treated as civil or criminal depends on evidence of intent and scale, statutory monetary thresholds (notably $5,000 as a turning point cited in practice), agency referrals, and prosecutorial discretion; retailers and recipients face both administrative remedies (CMPs, disqualification) and criminal exposure when conduct is large, organized, or willfully deceptive [1] [4] [6].