Michigan Senate Bill SB0364

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/5/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Report Pass: 6/12/25
• Refer: 6/12/25
• Report Pass: 6/26/25
• Engrossed: 8/26/25
• Refer: 8/26/25

Caption

Consumer protection: identity theft; references to identity theft protection act in code of criminal procedure; update. Amends sec. 10c, ch. II of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 762.10c). TIE BAR WITH: SB 360'25

Summary

Senate Bill 364 amends section 10c of chapter II of the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure to update venue rules for certain offenses involving identity theft and related crimes. The bill allows prosecution in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred, where the illegally used information was used, or where the victim resides. It applies this venue rule to the Identity Theft Protection Act, former identity-theft-related provisions, certain vehicle code offenses, and several specified Michigan Penal Code offenses that are connected to the same transaction. The bill also clarifies that when a person is charged with more than one violation of the Identity Theft Protection Act or section 539k of the Penal Code, and those violations could be prosecuted in more than one jurisdiction, any one of those jurisdictions may serve as the venue for all of the charges. The bill is tied to Senate Bill 360, meaning it does not take effect unless that bill is enacted into law.

Impact

SB 364 would change Michigan criminal procedure law by broadening and clarifying where prosecutors may bring identity theft and related charges. It affects venue selection for prosecutors, courts, and defendants in cases involving identity theft, misuse of personal information, and certain related fraud or computer/records offenses. The bill does not create new crimes or penalties; instead, it updates jurisdictional rules in MCL 762.10c to make multi-jurisdiction cases easier to prosecute in a single forum.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support, as reflected by its committee report out of committee and passage on the Senate floor. The recorded votes show it advanced, though not unanimously, suggesting some members supported the venue clarification while others had reservations. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record indicates overall legislative support without detailed public debate in the materials supplied.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the expansion or consolidation of prosecutorial venue in identity theft-related cases. Supporters would view the change as a practical tool to help prosecutors handle multi-county or multi-jurisdiction fraud cases and reduce duplication. Opponents may be concerned that allowing prosecution in multiple possible venues, or in a single chosen venue for multiple charges, could disadvantage defendants by giving prosecutors more flexibility in forum selection. The tie-bar to SB 360 is also notable because the bill cannot take effect independently.