Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026
HB 604 creates a new criminal offense for financial exploitation of vulnerable adults and seniors by a caregiver, family member, or household member. The bill prohibits such a person from knowingly and willfully obtaining the victim’s property with intent to deprive the victim, where the actor knows or reasonably should know the victim is a vulnerable adult or is at least 68 years old. It sets graduated penalties based on the value of the property involved, ranging from a misdemeanor for losses under $1,500 to felonies with increasing maximum imprisonment and fines for higher-value losses.
The bill also expands civil and administrative remedies. A violation is treated as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, allowing enforcement under Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article. The Attorney General’s Senior and Vulnerable Adult Asset Recovery Unit and the Securities Commissioner are authorized to bring civil actions for damages, even without a criminal conviction. The bill further allows State’s Attorneys to seek asset-freeze orders in certain cases, and it makes a person convicted under the new offense disqualified from inheriting or otherwise benefiting from the victim’s estate, insurance proceeds, or property to the extent restitution is unpaid.
HB 604 also amends related statutes to integrate the new offense into Maryland’s theft, courts, correctional services, criminal procedure, and estates laws. It gives the District Court exclusive original jurisdiction over adult charges under the new section, includes the offense in theft charging language, and makes certain low-value convictions potentially eligible for administrative release treatment. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progression is favorable, as it was reported from committee with amendments and adopted by the House. The measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and elder-abuse enforcement bill, with no recorded opposition in the provided materials. Because no committee transcript or vote breakdown is included, there is no documented floor debate to identify specific concerns, but the structure of the bill suggests the main policy focus is stronger deterrence, restitution, and asset recovery for exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults.
HB 604 adds a new section to the Criminal Law Article and cross-references it throughout Maryland law, creating a targeted offense for financial exploitation by caregivers, family members, and household members. It also amends the Commercial Law Article to classify violations as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices, authorizing consumer-protection enforcement and civil damages actions by the Attorney General’s offices. Additional amendments to the Criminal Procedure, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Correctional Services, and Estates and Trusts articles expand asset-freeze authority, define court jurisdiction, affect certain release eligibility rules, and impose inheritance disqualification tied to unpaid restitution.
The bill’s available legislative history indicates generally favorable sentiment. It was introduced by request of the Office of the Attorney General, received a favorable committee report with amendments, and was adopted by the House. The absence of recorded votes or hearing transcripts in the provided materials means there is no detailed public record here of opposition or divided views, but the bill’s framing suggests broad support for stronger protections against elder financial abuse.
No specific contention is documented in the supplied transcripts or votes. Potential areas of policy sensitivity inherent in the bill include the breadth of liability for caregivers and family members, the use of consumer-protection remedies for a criminal offense, asset-freeze procedures before conviction, and the inheritance-disqualification provisions tied to restitution. However, the provided materials do not show any recorded dispute over these issues, and the committee action was favorable with amendments.