SB 622 revises New Hampshire’s identity fraud statute to expressly cover “entities” in addition to individuals. The bill adds a new statutory definition of entity that includes corporations, LLCs, trusts, partnerships, associations, organizations, and government bodies at the state, county, and municipal level, along with their departments and agencies. It also broadens the definition of personal identifying information to include information used to assume the identity of an entity, such as logos or other marks used to identify an entity.
The bill updates the prohibited conduct for identity fraud so that a person may commit the offense by posing as, obtaining or using identifying information about, or assisting another to pose as, a person or an entity. It also covers posing as an entity to obtain confidential information not available to the general public. The act takes effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
SB 622 amends RSA 638:25 and RSA 638:26, expanding the scope of the identity fraud offense under New Hampshire law to protect business entities and government entities, not just natural persons. This change gives prosecutors a clearer basis to charge identity fraud involving corporate impersonation, misuse of organizational identifiers, and unauthorized use of entity-related identifying information. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact but possible indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, as well as county and local governments, from any resulting criminal enforcement activity.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was generally noncontroversial and technical in nature. There are no recorded committee transcripts or vote details indicating significant opposition, and the bill appears to have moved through the legislative process as a targeted update to existing criminal law. The fiscal note frames the measure as a statute-change bill with possible system costs, but not one with a direct budgetary effect.
Contention
The main substantive issue is the expansion of identity fraud protections from individuals to entities, including government agencies and business organizations. Supporters would likely view this as closing a loophole and modernizing the statute to address corporate and governmental impersonation, while any concern would center on whether the broader definitions could expand criminal liability or enforcement discretion. No specific objections, amendments, or divided votes are reflected in the provided record.
Relative to the penalty for certain fentanyl-related offenses; relative to establishing a mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of distribution of a controlled drug with death resulting; and relative to amending the penalties for the possession and use of a quantity of psilocybin for persons 18 years of age or older.