Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What penalties does USDA impose on individuals committing SNAP fraud?
Executive summary
USDA/FNS says individuals who intentionally break SNAP rules can face disqualification, civil monetary penalties, criminal charges, fines, and prison time; retailers and recipients have both been subject to these measures [1]. Federal reporting and prosecutions show large criminal cases—like a 2025 indictment tied to roughly $66 million in unauthorized SNAP redemptions—alongside administrative penalties such as temporary or permanent disqualification and state corrective actions [2] [3].
1. What the USDA publicly lists as penalties: administrative removal, fines, and criminal prosecution
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) states plainly that people who lie about income or sell benefits for cash “face severe penalties including disqualification, criminal charges, and prosecution resulting in fines and/or prison time,” and that retailers who traffic benefits can face civil monetary penalties and criminal prosecution [1]. FNS also notifies nearby retailers when a local retailer is disqualified, and it emphasizes enforcement partnerships with state and federal law enforcement to investigate trafficking and other abuses [4] [1].
2. How penalties differ between recipients and retailers
Available reporting distinguishes administrative actions (disqualification, corrective plans) and monetary penalties aimed frequently at retailers, while criminal charges may apply to either recipients or retailers depending on the behavior. For retailers, FNS may issue civil money penalties (CMPs) or disqualify a business from accepting EBT; CMPs can be used instead of disqualification when removing a retailer would cause hardship to beneficiaries [4] [5]. For recipients, the FNS statement emphasizes disqualification and potential criminal prosecution for intentional fraud [1].
3. Timeframes and ranges for disqualification and fines (what sources show and what they don’t)
Legal and defense-oriented summaries note that temporary disqualification for retailers under federal regulation can range from six months to five years, with permanent disqualification possible for serious or repeat offenses [6]. Sources provide differing specific dollar figures for criminal fines and CMPs—some legal guides cite fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to 20 years for criminal trafficking or fraud-related statutes, while other practice-oriented sources cite CMP caps and case-specific maxima reported in litigation summaries [5] [7]. Available sources do not present a single, unified schedule of every penalty amount for every factual variation; they instead show that penalty amounts depend on offense type, dollar value involved, and prior violations [8] [7].
4. Criminal enforcement: examples and scale
Prosecutors have pursued major criminal cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office unsealed a superseding indictment in 2025 alleging a conspiracy that produced about $66 million in unauthorized SNAP transactions, charging a USDA employee and others for using stolen license numbers and doctored applications to obtain EBT terminals for ineligible businesses [2]. Reporting on such prosecutions demonstrates that serious trafficking schemes can trigger federal criminal investigations and large restitution and criminal penalties [2] [9].
5. Oversight, corrective actions, and penalties applied to states
Congressional and GAO materials emphasize program-level oversight: USDA can place states with high error rates under corrective action and may levy financial penalties against states with repeated high error rates, indicating another enforcement channel beyond individual or retailer sanctions [3]. GAO has recommended strengthening penalty structures and data analytics to better identify improper payments, noting that improper payments were estimated at 11.7% (~$10.5 billion) for FY2023—context for why the agency focuses on enforcement [10].
6. Disagreements, limits of available reporting, and potential agendas
There is variation across sources about how often criminal prosecutions occur relative to administrative removals. Congressional analysis states criminal prosecution is “typically initiated by USDA OIG or state law enforcement,” and also that fraud is relatively rare compared with improper payments overall, suggesting enforcement emphasis may be concentrated on high-value cases [3]. Advocacy and media outlets have debated USDA leadership claims about removing beneficiaries from SNAP; NPR reported skepticism that large removal numbers correlated with criminal prosecutions, noting that only a small number of arrests were publicly reported compared with broader administrative actions [11]. These disagreements highlight a potential agenda tension: enforcement rhetoric can justify program tightening or narrative claims about widespread fraud, while GAO and congressional sources call for careful measurement and targeted oversight [10] [3] [11].
7. Practical takeaway for someone accused of SNAP fraud
If a retailer or individual receives a USDA charge letter or notice, legal sources uniformly advise rapid response because administrative deadlines are short and penalties can include suspension, CMPs, or disqualification; criminal exposure is possible in serious cases and can include substantial fines and prison terms [12] [4]. Specific penalties depend on the violation’s nature, dollar amounts involved, and prior history [8] [6].
Limitations: this review uses only the provided documents; sources do not give a single statutory table of penalties covering every scenario, and precise penalty calculations are case-specific in the cited materials [7] [5].