To amend section 117.103 and to enact section 117.104 of the Revised Code to allow awards for reports of fraud.
HB960 would expand Ohio’s fraud-reporting framework by creating a financial award program for individuals who report fraud involving public offices or public officials. The bill keeps the existing Auditor of State complaint system, including anonymous reporting by phone, web, or mail, and requires the Auditor to maintain a public log of complaints with certain limits for ongoing criminal investigations. It also directs the Auditor to notify the appropriate local prosecutor or chief legal officer when a report appears to involve probable fraud or theft, unless that official is the alleged wrongdoer.
The bill adds a new section establishing eligibility for awards when a report materially contributes to an audit, investigation, discovery, or civil or criminal action that results in a fraud recovery. The Attorney General would decide whether a reporter qualifies and, if so, set the award amount, capped at 10% of the recovery and paid from a newly created fraud reporting fund. The bill also requires the Attorney General to adopt rules on eligibility, award procedures, and confidentiality protections, and it preserves priority for restitution, audit costs, fines, and investigation costs before any award is paid.
HB960 would amend section 117.103 and enact new section 117.104 of the Revised Code, adding a whistleblower-style reward mechanism to Ohio’s public-fraud reporting laws. It would affect the Auditor of State, the Attorney General, public offices and officials, local prosecutors, and individuals who report fraud. The bill also reinforces training and notice requirements for public employees and elected officials regarding the state’s fraud-reporting system, and it creates a dedicated state treasury fund to pay awards.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House General Government Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to encourage reporting of public corruption and misuse of public money, suggesting a generally anti-fraud, accountability-oriented purpose. No formal support or opposition is documented in the supplied materials.
The main potential points of contention are the creation of cash awards for fraud reporting, the Attorney General’s broad discretion to decide eligibility and award amounts, and the finality of those determinations with no appeal. There may also be concern about the public-record log of complaints, the handling of anonymous reports, and whether awards could complicate restitution or other recovery priorities. The bill tries to address some of these issues by barring awards that interfere with restitution, audit costs, fines, or investigation costs, and by requiring confidentiality rules, but those safeguards may still be debated.