HB326 creates and defines the offense of theft by impersonation of a family member in Delaware law. The bill targets scams in which a non-family member uses oral, written, or electronic communications that are falsely represented to come from an immediate family member, or from someone acting for that family member, in order to facilitate theft. The definition of immediate family member includes spouses, children, siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and certain step- and adoptive relationships.
The bill establishes graduated felony penalties based on the victim’s vulnerability and the amount taken. For most cases, the offense is a class F felony; if the victim is 62 or older, impaired, or a person with a disability, the offense remains a class F felony unless the property value is at least $1,500, in which case it becomes a class E felony. Larger thefts are punished more severely, with class C felony treatment for losses over $50,000 and class B felony treatment for losses of $100,000 or more. The bill also requires full restitution, directs the sentencing judge to consider community service and, for minors, an appropriate curfew, and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days that cannot be suspended.
The bill’s impact is to add a specific theft offense to Title 11 of the Delaware Code and to increase criminal penalties for family-impersonation scams, especially those targeting older adults, impaired adults, and people with disabilities. It gives prosecutors and courts a clearer statutory basis for charging and sentencing these cases and requires restitution to victims for monetary losses. It also creates a mandatory incarceration floor, signaling a more punitive approach than ordinary theft provisions.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears strongly supportive. The House Third Reading vote was 33-2, indicating broad bipartisan approval. No committee transcript is available, but the bill’s synopsis and structure suggest it was framed as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud measure aimed at a particularly harmful form of deception.
The main point of contention is likely the severity of the punishment, especially the mandatory minimum 60-day sentence and the non-suspendable nature of that minimum. The bill also distinguishes between victims based on age, impairment, disability, and the value of the property taken, which may raise questions about proportionality and how the enhanced penalties will be applied in practice. Even so, the vote count suggests any objections were limited.
HB326 amends Title 11 of the Delaware Code by adding Section 841E, creating a standalone theft offense for impersonating a family member to facilitate theft. It expands Delaware’s criminal code to cover scams carried out through oral, written, or electronic communications falsely presented as coming from an immediate family member or someone acting for that family member. The bill also establishes felony grading, mandatory restitution, and a non-suspendable 60-day minimum sentence, affecting defendants charged under this new section and victims who may receive restitution.
The available voting record shows strong support for the bill, with a 33-2 House Third Reading vote. That margin suggests broad agreement that family-impersonation theft is a serious and harmful scam deserving specific criminal penalties. No committee discussion is available, but the bill’s synopsis and final vote indicate it was generally viewed favorably as a protective measure for vulnerable victims.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s mandatory minimum sentence and the severity of the felony penalties, particularly because the 60-day minimum cannot be suspended. Another possible point of debate is the bill’s tiered treatment of victims and property values, including enhanced penalties for victims age 62 or older, impaired adults, and people with disabilities. These provisions reflect a focus on vulnerable populations, but they also create sentencing distinctions that could be questioned on proportionality grounds. The narrow 33-2 vote suggests some legislators may have had concerns about punishment levels even if they supported the bill’s overall purpose.