AN ACT TO PROHIBIT A PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A LEASE TO PAY UTILITY SERVICES FROM KNOWINGLY FAILING TO PAY OR USING AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE TO USE ANY DECEPTION TO NOT PAY THE AMOUNT OWED TO THE UTILITY SERVICE; TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Summary
HB 1404 creates a new criminal offense for a person who receives money under a lease or rental agreement specifically to pay utility bills and then knowingly fails to apply that money to the utility account within 60 days of receiving the bill. It also covers situations where the person, or an agent or employee acting for them, uses deception, false pretenses, or false promises to avoid paying the utility provider. The bill is aimed at conduct commonly described as fraudulent utility conversion or landlord misappropriation of tenant utility payments.
The measure establishes graduated criminal penalties based on the amount misappropriated, ranging from misdemeanor-level punishment for amounts under $1,000 to felony penalties of up to 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for amounts of $25,000 or more. It also requires full restitution to victims and other financially harmed parties. The bill defines “person” broadly to include individuals and business entities, and it defines “utility services” to include water, electricity, gas, heat, and sewer services from both public and private providers. The act takes effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
HB 1404 adds a new section to Mississippi law criminalizing the failure to remit utility payments collected under a lease or rental agreement, effectively targeting landlords, property managers, and other entities that collect utility funds from tenants but do not forward them to the utility provider. It creates a tiered penalty structure tied to the value of the unpaid amount and authorizes restitution, expanding the state’s criminal enforcement tools in landlord-tenant and utility-payment disputes. The bill also includes exceptions where nonpayment is caused by tenant delinquency or utility-company administrative, clerical, or technical error.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, passing the House, then the Senate unanimously, and then the House again with a strong majority after Senate amendments. The vote history suggests the measure was viewed favorably as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud bill, with little visible opposition in the Senate and some resistance in the House. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into debate, but the final votes indicate general agreement on the need to deter misuse of tenant-paid utility funds.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of criminal liability and whether the bill could reach conduct better handled as a civil landlord-tenant dispute rather than a felony offense. The broad definition of “person,” the inclusion of agents and employees, and the felony penalties for larger amounts may raise concerns about overcriminalization or unintended application to property managers and business entities. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on protecting tenants and utility providers from fraud and service interruptions caused by misappropriated utility payments.