Hoosier scam prevention board.
HB 1318 creates the Hoosier Scam Prevention Board within the executive branch of Indiana state government as a continuing board. The board’s core mission is to gather information on educational materials, training, signage, technology, and community outreach aimed at helping seniors, consumers, employers, employees, retailers, financial services companies, and wire transfer companies identify and prevent scams. It is also charged with identifying gaps or weaknesses in existing anti-scam efforts and developing model materials, best practices, and recommendations to address those deficiencies.
The bill requires the board to post its findings and any materials it creates on the Attorney General’s website. The board would have 15 voting members, including the Attorney General or designee and representatives from agencies and organizations such as AARP, area agencies on aging, the Department of Insurance, Medicaid fraud control, State Police, adult protective services, minority health, financial institutions, long-term care ombudsman, and consumer protection, plus two consumer advocacy or charitable representatives. Members appointed by the governor would serve two-year terms, the board would meet at least annually, the Division would provide staff support, and board expenses would be paid from the state general fund.
HB 1318 adds a new chapter to Indiana Code Title 12, creating a state board focused on scam prevention and consumer education. It does not create criminal penalties or direct regulatory mandates for private entities, but it does establish a formal state advisory and coordination structure that can produce guidance for industries and the public. The bill also affects the Attorney General’s office and the Division by assigning them posting and staffing responsibilities, and it authorizes use of state general fund dollars for board expenses.
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and elder-protection measure with a generally preventive, collaborative purpose. Its emphasis on scams, fraud education, and coordination among state agencies and community organizations suggests a broadly favorable policy posture. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is included in the provided context, so there is no evidence here of significant public controversy or divided sentiment.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the creation of another state board, the use of general fund money, and whether the board’s work would duplicate existing consumer protection, fraud prevention, or elder services efforts. Another possible issue is the breadth of the board’s membership and whether the mix of state agencies, advocacy groups, and private-sector-related representatives is the best structure for producing useful anti-scam guidance. However, no specific objections, supporters, or committee disputes are included in the provided record.