Fact check: What are the penalties for SNAP benefits trafficking in the US?

Executive Summary — Direct Answer First: The federal criminal penalties for SNAP benefits trafficking scale with the value of benefits alleged to be trafficked: trafficking under $100 is charged as a misdemeanor with fines up to $1,000 and up to one year in prison; trafficking of $100–$5,000 is often charged as a felony with fines up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison; trafficking over $5,000 carries much higher exposure, including fines up to $250,000 and up to 20 years in prison. Civil consequences and program sanctions — including temporary or permanent disqualification, repayment of benefits, and civil recovery — are also routinely imposed alongside or instead of criminal prosecution ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This summary reflects federal statutory language and recent agency guidance and reporting; state-level enforcement and administrative practices can add variation and due-process concerns ^{[3] [4]}.

1. How the law defines the stakes — prison, fines, and statutory anchors that matter: Federal statute and legal summaries frame SNAP trafficking penalties by monetary tiers tied to the total value of benefits involved. The U.S. Code provision summarized in legal annotations lays out the tiered criminal exposures and mirrors the fines and imprisonment ranges described by legal practitioners: under $100 can be a misdemeanor with up to $1,000 and one year’s incarceration; $100–$5,000 becomes a felony with higher fines and up to five years; amounts exceeding $5,000 expose defendants to the steepest penalties, including fines reaching $250,000 and up to 20 years behind bars ^{[2] [1]}. These figures are reflected in practice guides and law firm summaries that interpret 7 U.S.C. § 2024 and related regulations for practitioners and the public ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Civil and administrative consequences — removal from the program and financial recovery: Beyond criminal law, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) enforces administrative sanctions that can be imposed without criminal conviction. FNS guidance and USDA materials emphasize that recipients found to have trafficked benefits face disqualification from SNAP — sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent — repayment obligations, and state-level civil recovery actions. The agency’s SNAP Fraud Framework and fraud-prevention programs prioritize detection and referral, and they expressly note that administrative penalties and repayment demands are standard remedies used in parallel with or in lieu of criminal prosecution ^[3]. These administrative pathways can lead to significant financial burdens and program exclusion regardless of whether criminal charges follow.

3. Real-world enforcement and due-process debates — data, hearings, and the Kentucky reporting: Recent reporting from Kentucky highlights administrative use of transactional data to remove recipients from SNAP, raising questions about whether the evidence used proves criminal intent or merely triggers automated sanctions. Kentucky Public Radio found state actions relying on purchase-record analysis and that many recipients accepted disqualification without hearings, sometimes under pressure, which suggests a gap between statutory criminal standards and administrative adjudication processes ^[4]. This reporting introduces an enforcement angle where the procedural pathway — administrative versus criminal — affects outcomes, remedies, and defendants’ opportunities to contest findings.

4. Where sources agree, and where perspective or emphasis differs: Legal summaries, the USDA’s own guidance, and law-practice materials concur on the tiered penalty structure and on the combination of criminal, civil, and administrative remedies available for trafficking ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Differences are mainly in emphasis: law firms and statutory summaries spotlight criminal exposure and sentencing ranges, whereas USDA materials and investigative reporting emphasize fraud prevention frameworks, administrative disqualification, and program integrity operations that often practice non-criminal sanctions first ^{[3] [1]}. Investigative reporting adds another dimension by flagging potential due-process shortcomings in state implementations of these federal frameworks ^[4].

5. What’s missing or uncertain — gaps that matter for someone facing allegations: Available summaries and agency guidance explain penalties and enforcement tools but leave open key practical questions: how states decide between civil administrative action and criminal referral, what evidentiary thresholds are applied in administrative hearings versus criminal courts, and how frequently prosecuting authorities seek the top-tier penalties compared with civil recovery or disqualification. One referenced regulatory guide offers context on store disqualifications and civil money penalties but does not detail recipient procedural safeguards in every state ^{[5] [3]}. Those facing allegations should recognize that penalty exposure varies by jurisdiction and process and that administrative actions can produce severe consequences even without criminal conviction ^{[3] [4]}.