 Good afternoon. We are now streaming live. Welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and it is Wednesday, February 10th. And this afternoon we're going to deviate a little bit from our agenda. The first item on the agenda says it represented Rachel will be discussing the budget issues, however, she is in appropriations right now. I'm listening to testimony so, so we'll postpone her presentation for now. And I, I think that Representative Gusslin is with her as well because I don't see him here so with that, Eric, if we could turn to you on h87 I didn't know if you have a question or anything first. I'm still not seeing the documents posted so maybe something's wrong in my end. Let me double check with Evan and Mike on that but. Okay. That's right now Eric. Thank you. And Martin, do you want to take the lead on this since this is a year you're Bill and you know it so well. Yeah. So we walked through this last week Eric wasn't available I did the best I could Eric I tried to channel your insight. Any confusion about the bill. That's why you're actually here to straighten it all out. No, I'm just kidding. So one of the big issues we just wanted to take this opportunity to actually go through, you know it's a long bill and it's actually relatively redundant relative to what it does as far as changing the way the penalties are, but really wanted to kind of understand the offense. Some of them are fairly straightforward but some of them might need just a little more explanation for folks to kind of understand what the offense is, and just tell us kind of what the penalty or what we're changing with respect to the fence I think that will kind of ground us a little bit better in this aspect of our criminal code the property crime so really appreciate that and I'll turn it over to Eric. That sounds good again Eric with Patrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to talk to the community about H87. As representative LaLonde was saying there's quite a number of property offenses involved in that portion of the bill and it sounds like you've already heard you know that the big picture that the bill creates a classification system for for the criminal code for all the offense criminal offenses in Vermont sets up classes of offense for example ABCD and E felonies a through E misdemeanors as well. Many other states do it that way, Vermont has as not enacted such a system up to date. And that's the proposal in in H87 and the piece I think we're talking about today just to think about the different categories different types of offenses property offenses is the topic 14 day, and the, the general approach of H87 is to not 100% of the time but I would say probably 80 to 90% of the time it fits property offenses into the scheme of categorization, according to the value of the property involved in the offense. So, and there are plenty of property offenses on the books actually, for example by that I mean, say, retail fast just picking one off the top of my head, an offense like retail that has been in the past. There's a number or a felony, based on the amount of money or property that was stolen, the value of the property stolen so you'll notice in a lot of offenses it's a strange number. But the demarcation line between a misdemeanor and a felony under current law is frequently $900. Here one might think but it's a product as many things are a legislative compromise years ago. There was a summer study committee that looked at that exact issue was trying to figure out, I think the old number had been $500 and many people thought that that was, the times had passed inflation that sort of thing $500 was too low of a number to distinguish between felonies and property offenses, sorry felonies and misdemeanors. But some people didn't somebody want to go to 750 and other people want to go to 1000 so they landed on 900. So that's in many places in existing laws. We go through it today you even see this $900 difference between felonies and misdemeanors. So, the concept of distinguishing between, you know, the grade of the offense on the basis of the amount of the value of the property involved is not new. That's that's in law already, but the proposed scheme that h87 uses is more detailed in it. And we'll look at it specifically just now it was kind of want to give that as background that sort of most of the offenses not all of them but most of them take that approach. In that sense, you know, I think going through the offenses themselves the substance of it may take a little more time but once you get used to what these categories are I think we can move pretty quickly through that and compare what the what penalty the offenses have now with what the proposal of h87 is going forward to be the new penalty. So, having said that, I prepared a couple of documents that I hope will be helpful for moving us along and thank you, Mike and Evan for posting them. I'm going to try and turn to them right now, if I can pull them both up. So my, I'm so I'm trying to share the document it says only the host can share in this meeting I might, I might need to be made the co host Mike Revin. Thank you. All right, let's see here I think we're moving along okay. Okay, is everyone seeing these documents now. I'll assume that's a yes. Yes, yeah. But nobody responded by unmuting. Thanks. So I've got two documents and I'm probably going to try and toggle back and forth between them as we go along here so just to show you what they are. So I took the bill itself. You'll see there's a highlighted so we can tell that this is not the bill is introduced at the top there this is a property crimes penalties. rework of the bill really just highlighting and adding in language where it would be helpful at this and this piece of it is just to sort of explain everybody what the substance of each of these property offenses are. So let's just zip right down to where through the first introductory parts and get to the offenses themselves and the first one I believe yes this fragment use of a credit card. So, this is going to be one document the other one I'll show you is. Oops. This chart. Now this I reworked and the sentencing commission had produced and thanks to James Pepper for getting me a word version of this that I could that I could modify a little bit. So what I'm trying to show here if you see we just look at the offense of the credit fraud use of a credit card offense for example we haven't looked at it in detail but that's what we were looking at was the first one. So on the chart you'll see with respect to that same offense the first one credit card fraud $50 or less and actually the next one down is $50 more same thing credit card fraud. The next row over is just the statute where it is that just the citation to the statute we were just looking at. And the next row you'll see penalty that's the current panel. So that's what the penalty is now for that offense fraud use of a credit card. Right now it's said, as you see it depends on the amount of the value of the of the fraud the value of still a fraudulent property obtained you can see the $50 is the threshold. If it's $50 or less, it's the current penalty is a misdemeanor six months in prison $500 fine. Whereas if the amount involved is $50 or should say more than $50. It's a one year misdemeanor with $1,000 fine. Everybody sort of following along so far we're moving left to right on the chart. So then skip to the next skip the next call, but go to the next one and that's the proposal that's the proposed penalty. So you'll be able to see by looking at these two columns, what the current penalty for the offense is and what the proposed penalties, and you'll see in the, in the proposed column. The first that I've listed what the tier system is now I'm not going to list this every time because that would take a lot of space and I think I just but I listed it once for each page. So that because it's hard to memorize it but that way we'll be able to sort of as we're going through each page see oh yeah what's that what's the value amount that distinguishes between each of the tears. And you'll see so if you follow down on the, you know that second to last column over what the tiered proposal. And let's walk through that for a second and remind ourselves what that proposal that so that the offense involves remember it all turns on the value of the property involved in the crime. The value is less than $100 you see, then it's a class D misdemeanor, which has a maximum incarceration period of 30 days. So 30 days imprisonment, if it's a class D misdemeanor, and that's what applies if it's less than $100. If it's $100 to $199, then it's a class C misdemeanor, which is six months in prison. And that's 1000 to 2009 99 and that's essentially less than 3000 where we're going there to 1000 and 3000 to class A misdemeanor which is a two year penalty. If this involves 33,000 to and that should be that's a typo that should be 99999 because it's up to $100,000 so between 3000 and 100 grand, then it actually becomes a felony. It's a class D threshold and getting over to a felony that that's a class E felony, three years. And then lastly, if it's $100,000 for more than the class D felony, five years. So that's, sorry. I didn't know last time that you had something up on the screen you said you couldn't see our hands so. Same thing. Okay, good. Yeah. Too late I already did. No, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer on the, on the terms of the incarceration, those are like the 30 days, six months that's up to right that that's not a minimum. Exactly that's the maximum. Right okay. Yeah, thanks for that clarification representative I should have mentioned that that that is a maximum. It's not required and it's not a minimum. So, could be less could even be fully suspended, it could be a completely suspended suspended sense depending on the, you know, particulars of the individual case. Sure. But that's the max. And so you think about it okay so that's the tier and the proposal. And this credit card fraud, you'll see the proposal is that it follows this, the tiered system. So the Sentencing Commission and 87 have proposed that for that offense, the, the penalty, follow the, the tiers that are set up in the bill. Now, I'm just going to for a second contrast that so you know what I mean by that because not every offense. Do they propose as I said like I think I don't know 80 to 90% of them or something went on this classification system whereby it, the penalty depends on the amount of property involved, but not every one of them. So I'm just going to skip down here real quick for example just the first one I came to the credit card, the use of a credit card skimmer. So in a minute that's the second one on the page I'm looking at you see that doesn't, if you walk over to or go over to the second to last column, you'll see that one does not propose to follow the tiered system. It's that one proposed a specific penalty classy felony of 10 years. There's a difference between whether you're following the tiered proposal or not if the, if the, if the proposal is to follow the tiers, then the penalty varies on the basis of the amount of property involved. If not, then it will, the proposal will propose a specific penalty and for each offense. And in that case, obviously, the proposal was not to follow the tiered system, but to impose a specific enumerated panel. So that's the distinction between the two types of penalty provisions that we're going to see as we walk through the bill. Yeah. And I'm at the top at the first tiered. So, follow tiered proposals, less than $100 that's, that's if the crime is less than $100. Right. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Use a credit card for, but I, but I use the credit card fraudulently on a on a $50 bill. Right. Yeah. I guess I'm more thinking out loud because I'm thinking of the penalties which of course aren't aren't listed in here but that that's a another question for another time I guess if we start talking about penalties, other than just saying, you know, the class. Right. You mean like, what the fine might be or something. Yeah, the fine and that type thing but I guess what's going through mind Alaska now what's going through my mind is, and I'm going to assume restitution is probably in the penalties somewhere. The restitution is is not in each specific statute, but the general approach to restitution is that restitute the court orders restitution when there's been a loss. Yes, that's that is part of the, the sentence and the final order, when there's been a financial that fits the definition of victim and in the restitution statute then the court, I think that I think pretty sure the language says the court shall order restitution when there's been a qualifying loss. But that separate that separate from the fine. That's restitution right person is supposed to pay back to, you know, whoever it is that they that they took the money from. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understood that but sorry for getting off on this on a side road. Oh, it's all related. So yeah so so since the proposal here is to use the tiered system for credit card fraud of $50 or that sort of $50 or more of the first two offenses. So that's the proposal for the way this would work. And how much property you've obtained fraudulently with the credit card, how much, or what, what the penalty for the offense would be. So, if you compare that, for example, let's go to the $50 or less. Let's go to the current law, let's go to the very top one now current law. If you use your credit card to obtain $40 and property fraud you don't like fake the credit card. That's going to be a six month $500 fine. Under the proposal you'll see that penalty goes down, because that's less than $100 right and that so that would make it a classy misdemeanor, the very top listed offense and in the second to last column, and that's a 30 day. So, that in that instance, the, the penalty would be reduced based on what it is in current law. So again you'll see some get reduced some get increased some stay the same but that you know we'll try and hit those as we go through them, but it is going to vary based on the amount of property that's involved so for example since there's only an existing one for credit card fraud it's either under $50 or over $50 there's going to be more variation in the in the current in the proposed penalty scheme, depending on how much money was involved so let's say there was to pick another number of $500 involved. Well, under the under the current law. All right credit card fraud $500 you would go down to the second one down right because that's more than 50. So three columns over that's going to be a one year misdemeanor. Right under current law, but under the proposal, you go back to that's so that's a category number two down from the top, that's between $100 and $999. That 500 bucks we talked about. So that's a six month misdemeanor classy. So in that instance, the, the penalty goes down. Everybody see that goes down from one year to six months. But on the other hand, let's say that it was $1500 credit card used to obtain $1500 of merchandise illegally. Person's charge of credit card fraud since under existing law. There's only two categories, either below 50 bucks or above 50 bucks. The 1500 bucks doesn't change the penalty from what it was for 500. It's still one year $1000, but it does change the penalty under the proposal because we go go up to those categories. All right, that brings you down to the third, the third level. That's between $1000 and 3000 basically that makes it a classic. They misdemeanor and that's a two year plan, which is greater than the one years. Again, you got two more categories that if you were using it for $20,000 in fraud, that bum shipped for three years. If you used it to obtain more than $100,000 in penalty, sorry, in property, fraudulently. Then it brings you up to a class, class deep down here with just five years. So again, in some situations the penalty is less in some situations it's more all depends on the amount of property involved. And when I say less, less and more, I mean, as compared to the current penalties. So, and take a moment here because I was figuring that the very the very first offense that we went through we go through this in much more detail I think as we go forward we'll be able to be able to move much more quickly because now everybody understands how this tiered system works. But I do want to pause since this is sort of our most detailed discussion of how that system works compared to what some current penalty structures are and see if anybody's got any questions at this point does that make sense to folks. So, I take it this is done like this because of past practice or what's going on, what's what's happened with this whole thing. I mean, kind of like the sentencing or something like that they was set your wide range or or no. I think I'll defer to represent the land on further explanation but I think you're right that from that, looking for some uniformity and consistency of penalties for offenses I think is a big factor and why this is being proposed exactly. I mean, I think that we heard from some of the witnesses who explained that consistency was an important element of why we're doing this, and particularly this particular offense. So the same essential behavior can be under current law before you know if this bill is in past you know the same behavior can be charged under I believe it's fraudulent use if I'm remembering right, which is a 10 year felony, or it could be charged as a credit card fraud, which you think is a six month or one year misdemeanor. And so they wanted consistency of behavior having consistent outcomes or consistent penalties. And this is one of the prime examples where they're trying to have that consistency. At least that's you know, as I understand from the prosecutors and particularly testified to that. This only follows. And this is probably doesn't sound very smart of me but this only is for a Vermont resident this isn't for somebody that does something outside of Vermont on our credit card right. I can, it would be, well that's that's getting into what exactly the the offenses elements are as opposed to, you know the penalty that's kind of divorced from the penalty but this is not necessarily just Vermont residents it's, it's if the offense occurs in Vermont, but I'll let Eric explained that part a little bit more. No, that's exactly right. The, it could be the offense itself has to take place in Vermont but it could be. It could be a resident of another state who was in Vermont and you know committed credit card offense that are fraud at a Vermont hotel it doesn't matter if the hotel was in Vermont and took place here it doesn't matter if the person who committed the offense was a Vermont resident or someone from out of state, but the offense does have to be committed here yes. So the offense so like if I call then I ordered something would just use on Amazon. If, if that call was made here and it could be proven. That's when it falls into this but if they were over, if it happened in Massachusetts, if it happened, let's say in New Hampshire, it wouldn't, it wouldn't be prosecuted here correct, even though I'm a Vermont resident. That's right if the crime occurred in New Hampshire that's correct. So that phone call is going to be hard to track. Right. Well, the, that's a pretty subtle question of where what courts have jurisdiction. If you're talking about a situation where, you know, perhaps one of the parties to the phone call was in Vermont. But the sale didn't take place here. I think that's a very fact specific question. I couldn't, I couldn't answer the, you know, generally speaking, or that in every case there would be jurisdiction over the, the offense or not. But it is that you raise a point that is, you know, often, often litigated in court and then in some of those, you know, gray area situations where it's unclear where defense took place which obviously these days, given our online world happens more often than it used to. Then that can be, that can be the subject of disagreement between prosecutors and defendants but that's not something that's changed at all by this bill that sort of state of the state of affairs continues as it is. Yeah, gotcha. Thanks, Sarah. Sure. Will then Bob. Yeah. Right. Thank you. I wasn't sure if you were there. So I have a question. And I guess it's in regards to consistency. So I mean, would I see the credit card fraud and the tears now for where this bill proposes a new crime for retail theft, where someone who is committing retail theft over a number of occasions, could law enforcement could when coming up with charges combine the totals of that retail theft. Is that something that could also be applied to credit card fraud? I suppose it's, I think that's a separate offense that's created in the bill that doesn't, it doesn't exist under current law. It's the one place in the bill that this, that this new offense, you know, other than, other than that, the bill just sort of reclassifies existing offenses but in that one case as you point out there's a new offense created. And I don't think it applies, I suppose that there were, if there were organized retail theft in which the, and over the multiple occasions, the person used a credit card to commit the theft. That's possible but I, without the language right in front of me, I thought it was retail theft in more of a shoplifting sense, taking goods out of a, out of a retail establishment but we can look at that when we get to the language. Thank you. Yeah, no, I think I suspect the way it is now that it would be it is just covering say shoplifting. But I wonder if we, if we are going to accept that provision and make that new law. I do wonder if it might make sense. I'm envisioning a scenario where someone is able to get multiple credit card numbers. So maybe commits credit card fraud with five different cards where the penalty will be much higher if those amounts could be totaled. Thank you. So that that might actually be a question for the prosecutors on how to prove that if they're able to, if they have to look at every transaction section unless the language which I know that we're going to be getting to in a minute. The language is not going to be interesting to find out from prosecutors if it's on a per transaction basis or if it's just the use of a credit card for however many transactions that credit card was used for. Thank you. Will is saying multiple credit cards by the same person. I don't know if Eric if you have an answer that or if that's something we should hold for pepper when we get him back in. I don't know the answer to that one at the top of my head. I think I think that in general. I don't think pepper or matter someone else will be able to chat more detail about this but it. It turns on whether the multiple youth if there's nothing specifically said about it which as you see I pulled up the fraud with use of a credit card statute. Just now as we were talking about this to see if the language said anything. And I don't see anything in there specifically about multiple uses under the current statute. In those situations it depends on whether the multiple instances are kind of a rising out of the same sort of common set of facts the same the same course of conduct but but and the same event really if it's multiple. But if they're distinct somehow then they might be able to charge them separately. But that's a sort of a bigger picture question that the practitioners will be able to provide some some insight about. Bob has his hand up I just wasn't sure if you could see that. Yes, thank you. Quick question Eric you had mentioned that. Not actually following is this to your proposal but the court could, I guess we're going to have someone come in and explain restitution to me I know I know the basics of it are about a court could order restitution along with a point from the court itself to an individual is that correct. Yes. So, historically speaking, if you know, would the court want or ask the the the accused to clearly pay back restitution prior to the court receiving any money, the victim in other words. That's a good question I'm not sure the priority of payment. That's a good question for again for the practitioners, possibly judge Pearson but yeah, I know they're separate and distinct the fee at sorry the fine to the court and also as well as any, any associated assessments are separate from the restitution order. Restitution order is separate and is enforceable by the restitution unit in the Center for Crime Victim Services separately from the court fine but but it's a good point about which one. I don't know if there's a prioritization or if they both sort of seek payment simultaneously. I'm not certain. Okay, I guess I'll lean toward the victim myself but I guess we'll have to hopefully judge Gerson can answer that. Yeah, and also when when Chris Fennow does becomes available. She can help us with that for sure, in terms of understanding how restitution works. Great. So, Kate has her hand up. Thank you. I'm just noticing looking at the fines that are associated with these crimes and, and I've seen a couple examples where the fines remain either remain the same or would would increase under these changes. For example, the credit card fraud $50 or less. The time serve potentially is much lower but the fine is the same. And then looking at a couple others where the fine would increase. I'm looking randomly at like false pretenses of $900 or more like theoretically if it was $900. And then looking at the class C misdemeanor which would be a $2500 fine, which is actually higher than what the fine currently is I'm just curious to hear a little bit about about how fines were considered in this and it's this is maybe a better question for someone else in future testimony. Feel free to let me know but curious to hear a little more about that. Yeah, that's certainly true. And that sometimes the fines are higher into the proposal if they are in current law but as to the why that is I think I would defer to represent of the land or other representatives of the sentencing commission as to why they chose that in their proposal. I guess another question we should probably hold for for pepper and for judge Greerson probably as well. I don't want to do too much testifying, even though I was on the sentencing commission, I think it probably makes more sense for for those members to weigh in on that and and answer that question. I mean, I, you know, I have information I heard thing, you know, I've, I kind of know what they're going to answer but better, better for it to come from them. Thank you. Okay, Tom. Thank you, Eric earlier, can it brought it up. Kind of people working across state lines if somebody ordered something from, or did some kind of credit card fraud in another state. In Vermont. Does that become a federal crime, since it's somebody's working across state lines. That's a possibility. Yep, the interstate interstate conduct can sometimes bring an offense under federal jurisdiction absolutely right now doesn't have to charge it, but they potentially right. Yeah, I'm sure they're not going to go after somebody for $1,000 but right. You get up into into a million or something they, they would probably go for it, but thank you. I guess that reminded me to pull up there's not in this bill but there's a general provision in the jet in the sort of general provisions of the criminal code about referring to crimes committed partly outside the state that's 13 BSA section to does save you if you would be if a person with the intent to commit a crime doesn't act within this state, which culminates in the commission of a crime either within the state or out of the state. She'll be punished for the such for the crime in this state as if the same as if the crime had been committed entirely here. Then it goes on to say a crime committed by means of an electronic communication, including a telephone telephonic communication shall be considered to have been committed at either the place where the communication originated, or the place where it was received. So if you make the call from Vermont, even if you're ordering something in New Hampshire, sounds like the statute is providing the Vermont courts for jurisdiction. Is that helpful to people hear that. Yeah, also if it if the call starts in New Hampshire, it is called to Vermont it can be charged here. Yes. Exactly. All right. So any other questions on. On the, I know we're sort of all it's kind of the initial stage kind of grounding ourselves in the nature of the, the walkthrough, but also like 30 more crimes to go right so you know, it's not going to take long. I think 30 more will get us about halfway there. But I think they'll go a lot quicker once they were just sort of kind of framing how this is going to work so. But it sounds like the other thought I had too is that so looking at the chart. As I, as we were just as we noticed, you know, the substance and the elements of the event offense are highlighted on this separate document from the chart. But my thought had been not necessarily to go look at the elements of every fence because some of these are pretty self explanatory. So I will go through the chart. Like for now we proceed to the next one, which is forgery. I think everyone understands what forgery is. I wouldn't tend to look back at the offensive switch documents on that one. I'll only probably switch back when it seems like it's a little unclear or needs a little further explanation. But if someone wants to hear more. Or if anyone feels like we should look at the offense each time. Please let me know. For some of the ones that don't, it seemed relatively self explanatory. I was not going to switch back and look at the the actual language of the offense but certainly can if anybody wants to so. Remembering that I can't see anybody raise their hand please please just interrupt me if you want to slow down or look back at one of the one of the offense. So, moving along, having said that forgery again, as I mentioned I only print the tiered proposal one time on each page but for forgery you'll see what's the current, the current penalty for forgery is a 10 year felony. Pretty substantial does not vary at all based on the amount of property that's obtained via the forgery. It's 10 years no matter what the proposal. It's called the tiered provision. So that means that it will depend on the amount of property involved in the forgery. And if it's again it's a very small amount $50 it's a class D misdemeanor 30 days. If it's a large amount over $100,000 class D felony five years. So it can range anywhere from five months. Sorry, 30 days to five years, depending on the amount of property involved, compared to the 10 year felony currently. So having said that it must so then I would move on to the next one uttering a forgery. There's one that I must. I was surprised myself I was curious what does uttering mean in this sense of a forgery statute. It's interesting. It is synonymous with publishing. You see that in line 17 I looked that went up. And it's another thing I should mention you'll see with these property offenses. Many of these statutes are quite old, and they use archaic language. They seem to address criminal acts that seem like they date from quite some time ago and are not as common anymore. And that's just the nature of the statutes in general and certainly the criminal code as well that you'll see some of the some of the offenses covered and the language itself has been on the books for quite some time and this uttering a forged document is a is an older term, and it means publishing so you see the offense here is not the actual forgery itself. Right. This offense is publishing a forged or counterfeited document. So you publish it as true. And you know that it's false you know that it's for sure it's illegal with the intent to injure defraud a person that's mine 20 or 21. Obviously a very specific offense here. The penalty provision of uttering a for which are counterfeited instrument comes in. And so we look at well what is the penalty for that. It is the same as the forgery itself. Right. See that's the connection between those two. If you forge the document, you get to 10 year felony or if you utter the fourth document other words you publish it knowing that it was forged with the intent to injure somebody. So if I could just ask real quick so that would be like trying to sell a piece of artwork as as an original or something like that is that what that would cover this this crime. Yes or potentially, you know, I, and again as you mentioned earlier, it seems like there's a lot of conduct that could be charged under many different of these offenses, but even for example, you know, publishing some some fake. You know bill of sale that alleges that something had been sold when it wasn't you give it to somebody else and say oh yeah this this, I bought this piece of furniture or whatever it was and therefore it belongs to me. Again, an older statute. So, some, sometimes hard to envision the particulars of what's going to be charged but I think you're right that, you know, a piece of counterfeit art or false document of some sort that you publicize to another person would bring that one in. You don't have to be the person who committed the forgery in other words. It's one counterfeiting is also interesting I thought particularly interesting about counterfeiting is that it's got a 14 year criminal penalty I don't know where that came from again probably a product of some legislative compromise at some point in time, but highly unusual, usually multiples of five is what you see in criminal penalties you know five years 10 years 1514 very unusual, but that's what the current this specifically involves counterfeiting money counterfeiting so you put you know you're, you're making fake money basically is what the counterfeiting statute does and that's what has the 14 year penalty, you currently. And now in the proposal it's going to it follows the tiered proposal so it depends on the, you know the amount of fake money that you've made. So if it's a very small amount, it could be again going back to our tears Oh sorry, I saw on that page a little bit lower, you see, could be 30 days if you've only only counterfeited to $20 bills but it could be five years if it's, you know, much more. So, the, you'll see is that the credit card skimmers the first one that we've come to that actually has the exact same penalty, both in existing law, and the proposal by the Commission, you see that it's a 10 year felony currently and the proposal in 1887. It's also for a 10 year felony. Oops, sorry. I know if everyone knows but. I'm sorry, Eric, on the counterfeiting if you go back to counterfeiting. I don't know how I ended up way up here. You mean to the offense or to the penalty. Yeah the offense is or either or it's a question about counterfeiting so as far and this probably is not a question for you but I just want to. Just throw it out there and, and maybe we'll get some other folks to testify on it. So, if we're talking about property value, it would seem that with respect to counterfeiting that if you use the $100 bill or you use $500 worth of counterfeiting and so that puts you in a certain category. That's one thing, but if you actually have $10,000 worth of counterfeited bills back home but you've, you've only used $20 let's say you've only used gone to a store and you've been passing a counterfeit money. So it's not. So I'm, that's a little problematic to me as far as how one would, would calculate the value so that the other point and it's something to ponder we can again get some more testimony is, Well, I guess it's related if the idea is that really doesn't matter how you use that counterfeit currency. It's just the fact that you have counterfeited the money that that leads to the penalty. Then, you know, maybe it's somewhat divorced by what the actual value is I'm kind of questioning that one I hadn't really thought of it until just now so that's probably not a question for you unless you want to weigh into that but it's but the other. The other question though I have is, is there, is there a federal, why do we have a state law regarding counterfeiting money when it's really a federal offense I mean we don't have state currency do we that. We should be worried about shouldn't this I mean when would this, I guess it probably has been used and we can ask Robin joy or look at some of her documents and whether it's been used, but but is there I assume there's a counterpart federal law. And I guess there's a yes, why do we have a state law for this as well in this particular instance. Yeah, I don't know it's been on the books for a long time. But yes it's certainly true that there's a federal counterfeiting criminal statute as well. It's not unusual for there to be both federal and state criminal prohibitions on the same conduct that's, that's not uncommon but it is true that seems a bit unusual in this situation because it doesn't print off paper money as far as I know. But it could be I'm just speculating but you know it could be that if you know someone only counterfeited, you know $40 seems not being a counterfeiter myself I'm not really sure but it seems like if you were going to counterfeit money why would you want to do 220s but hey, if someone only did that. And maybe that's not the kind of case that the feds would take. I don't know just speculating but. Yeah, and I guess the thing again is the other point is that, yeah if you've counterfeit $10,000 but it's just in your basement doing nothing. You know what what is necessarily the harm the harm isn't presumably until it actually is put into commerce. But this could be a theoretical or discussion to have with some of the other people. When we get them back. This is this is punishable counterfeiting by federal court not state court right. A boat. Either one. Yeah, because you've got, you know, it's the, you this offense on the books right here makes it a Vermont crime that could be punishable by a state prosecutor in Vermont. And there's a, you know, I don't have the exact language in front of me but there is a separate federal offensive counterfeiting as well. So that it also could be prosecuted by a United States attorney in federal court. But the state doesn't print the money the feds do. Correct. Does that make any sense. I think that's kind of represent a lot and was saying to I don't know, because it's such an old statute, you know, was there may have been trying to address something that happened long, long ago when Vermont was more in the potentially there could be notes or something that was were published in the in the state I'm not really sure. You know, the language, the language certainly says if you look at lines 10 and 11. You know, anything purported to be a bank bill or promissory note issued by a banking company incorporated by Congress or by the legislature of a state. So maybe it's not just currency. Maybe, could it be, you know, a promissory note issued by a bank could also be counterfeited that would be covered by this statute. I can see Bitcoin coming. Yeah, there we go. So, chair grad I wonder if I can just ask I know that Robin joy is on the call and maybe she doesn't have the answer at the tip of her fingers but, but when when she does testify it would be nice if I know that she has data that could tell us if this has been charged. It's a particular offense in the last 10 years and that would be kind of interesting to know. So, she doesn't have to know but just if I could flag that for you Robin if you could take a look at that. Yes, sir. Thanks. All right, sorry to lead you up. Sorry to jump back to that. Eric, I'm good with that. Thanks. Oh, sure. No problem. No, like I said, the jump in anytime. Yeah, we mentioned this this is the credit card skimming devices which has the interesting has the same penalty if you look at lines nine and 10 here page 10. You'll see the existing penalty is 10 years. And the proposed changes to change it to a classy felony which is also a 10 year maximum. And people probably know the credit card skimming device is essentially a device that can attach to, you know, when you put your credit card in the payment device at a store they have other devices that illegal devices that can attach to that. Certificially, and obtain your credit card information. And that was a, this statute was passed. This is, as you might guess also a more recent statute specifically about credit card skimming devices. I'm sure more recent than uttering a forgery, for example, the language then is more recent and addresses a very particular type of conduct that could also conceivably be charged as something else, whether it be fraud or some other type of offense but there is something very particular about the credit card offense that made the 10 year felony. Be enacted for this one. So, move on down here. Now false personation and false pretenses or tokens are all or two of the statutes that are quite old have been on the books for some time. They have to do with falsely impersonating another person or impersonating mother money from another person you see the first one false personation that you personate is think of it as impersonating impersonate another person or represent another person. And when you're doing that you, you receive money that's intended to be delivered to that other person. Hello. Hello. Thank you. You too. You pretend to be that other person and take money that was intended for them. That currently you see as a 10 year felony. So if we switch over to the chart false personation follows the tears. So again, it depends on how much money you have obtained on when you're pretending to be that other person. But if it's less than $100 it's 30 days, etc, etc. So it's not the 10 year felony in all circumstances. It varies on the basis of the value of the money you obtained while you were engaged in the in the false impersonation. Same thing with false pretenses, which is what we were just looking at also follows the tiered proposal. Interesting. This is one of those offenses that does under existing law use that $900 threshold. See that it depends on if the amount of we'll take a quick look back at the language here. Now, a false token is also just, you know, as a fall, a false document or a false symbol, a false mark of some kind could be a fake signature for example some kind of a falsified document. If you use a falsified document or, or with the intent of online 12 to defraud, and you obtain from another person money or other property, or release of a debt or obligation that's interesting, or the signature of a person. So you obtain all these, or any one of these things from somebody else with the intent to defraud them by using a false token. Maybe you're again use a false document that asserts that you're somebody who you're not or a false document that claims that you know you own property but you don't use that to get somebody else to pay you money, or to give you property. Then it results in this panel, sorry results in this crime but again depends on the amount of property that you've obtained from the person as to what penalty would attach to that so switch back to the chart and see that. Again, if it's a $900 or less, it's one year misdemeanor. If it's more than $900, it's a 10 year felony, which I remember is the same penalty that we saw for false personation, whereas the proposal in 887 is to follow the tiers. So again, will depend on how much property is involved and it could be as low as 30 days or as high as five years depending. So for home improvement fraud, another very recent crime that's one that has been adopted in the 20th century 21st century 21st century actually, and you'll see that the case to some of the language of what is home improvement fraud is what you would think it is you, if you enter into a contract to for home improvement, you don't perform. And then when the owner asks that you do perform you either either refuse to do it or refuse to give their money back, or if you misrepresent material facts about the contract that's number two or the condition of the property, or if you use unfair or deceptive to induce or encourage somebody to enter into the contract again. That's probably something that could be charged under one of the other existing offenses but as is often the case with policy, it became viewed by the legislature is such a widespread act that it needed to be addressed specifically. So that's why you have the specific statute of more recent vintage, having to do with home improvement fraud as a particular offense. And again, penalty uneven under existing law depends on the amount of the value of property that's involved in the fraud. So you look at our chart again, if it's a less than 1000 under current law it's a two year misdemeanor. If it's more than it or sorry, these actually use multiple offenses as well. So if it's less than 1000 you do it a second time then it becomes a three year felony, but you see that it's more than $1000 it starts as a three year felony but if it's more than $1000 second time it becomes a five year felony. And each of these instances, the tiered proposal is followed. So in some instances it's going to be less some instances it's going to be more. But you'll see that the maximum is actually the same in this case because the maximum under current law for the highest degree of home improvement fraud more than $1000 second offense maximum is five years the same way that's the five year maximum under the tiered system that's proposed in age 87. So now we're getting into another recent crime which is the crime of identity theft also, oops sorry, and acted more recently. Let's see there it is and this is also cut and pasted some of the elements of the offense here if you obtain produce possess use personal identifying information belonging or pertaining to another person with the intent to use the information to commit a crime. So that's that you would you obtain this personally identifying info with the intent to commit a crime. So here if you, you transfer someone else is personally identifying information without their consent, facilitating the use of that information by somebody else to commit a crime. So it's not just that you, you obtain it from somebody, you get it from somebody and give it to somebody else always with the intent to commit a crime is sort of the underlying requirement there. That's what the offense is. This is another offense that gets more severe the second time you do it. So you see, this is the very top of this page. The current penalty is that three year felony identity theft for $5000. But if you do it a second time it's a 10 year felony. And this is also one of the ones you see where the proposal does not take the tiered approach. So it actually maintains the, at least in terms of the incarceration, the penalties that are in existing law. So for the first offense, existing lots three years $5000. And the proposal in 887 is also three years. The fine is actually increased from 5000 to 15,000. Same with the second offense, the tenure imprisonment is the same, but the fine goes up from 10,000 to 50,000. So now we've got insurance fraud. Again, you can see that some of these that you, we have gone through some of these. And some of them speak very generally, you know, falsely impersonating another, another person, where some are particular to really certain sets of facts, whether it be insurance fraud or home improvement fraud, that sort of thing. And these are, you'll see these in the criminal statutes frequently and seem to be often responding to a particular problem as it comes along sometimes a more particular statute will be enacted, which is what happened with insurance fraud. So I'm having a hard time playing it up here. Here we go. So, insurance fraud also as you might expect is what it sounds like with the online 14 there. If you want to fraudulent insurance act is if you would be intent to fraud, you present a claim you for a payment or benefit that contains false representations. It's not a material factor conceals material fact, or you do the same thing concerning this is my 20 concerning the solicitation for sale of any insurance policy. So if you're, you're trying to purchase it, or you're trying to sell it either way. It can be insurance fraud. Again, this is one of the offenses that varies based on the $900 threshold under current law. So it's less than $900. It's a six month misdemeanor. If it's more than 900, it's a five year felony. And the second offense is also a five year felony regardless of the amount. And the proposal again follows the tears each instance. So, depending on the amount of money involved in the insurance fraud, the penalty could be less or it could be more depending as I say, on how much was defrauded. And now we get into the larceny statutes. Eric Eric before you go any further what on the insurance fraud. They basically do the same thing. So why do we need what why is there like three of them. You mean in the left hand column. Yeah. Yeah. Well that. Sorry, go ahead. No, I'm just saying I'm confused maybe I didn't quite understand what you said maybe but I guess I need a little more explanation on why there's three different types of insurance frauds. Do you mean, when you say three are you referring to the left hand column that we're looking at right now. Yes. We'll see though that's the same crime it's just a different penalty, depending on how much money was defrauded. Okay, then it goes to to the tiered column for just insurance fraud. Exactly. Okay, got you. Yeah. Thank you. Sure. So, Eric I'm looking at our time at around three ish or so I want to take a break so I'm not sure just keep that in mind in terms of how much time you need unless this is a good breaking point or before we go for another five or some minutes. Um, I'm pretty flexible. You now seem like a, we're moving from insurance to larceny so it might be a good time to break. There you go. So let's take about a 15 minute break please. Thank you.