A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 27-7-80 SO AS TO DEFINE TERMS RELATING TO REAL ESTATE FRAUD AND CREATE THE FELONY OF DEED THEFT.
H5159 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code creating the felony of “deed theft,” also described as “title fraud,” within the state’s real estate fraud laws. The bill defines key terms such as fraud, deed theft, and “real estate instrument,” and it identifies conduct that would be unlawful, including altering, forging, or counterfeiting real estate documents; knowingly using forged or altered documents; and filing real estate instruments using false names, false statements, or concealed material facts.
The measure is aimed at preventing unlawful transfers of property ownership and protecting property owners from fraudulent changes to deeds, titles, mortgages, liens, plats, and related documents. A violation would be punishable as a felony, with a maximum prison term of five years, and the act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
If enacted, H5159 would expand South Carolina’s criminal code by creating a specific felony offense for deed theft and related real estate document fraud. It would give prosecutors a clearer statutory basis to charge conduct involving forged deeds, counterfeit instruments, and false filings affecting property ownership, and it would apply to a broad range of real estate records and ownership documents. The bill would primarily affect individuals involved in real estate transactions, property owners, title holders, and anyone handling or filing property-related instruments in the state.
The available context suggests the bill is generally intended as a consumer- and property-protection measure, with no recorded committee debate or votes showing opposition or support. The caption and text indicate a straightforward anti-fraud proposal, and the absence of transcripts or voting history means there is no documented controversy in the provided materials. Overall, the bill appears to have a protective, law-enforcement-oriented purpose rather than a partisan or policy-heavy one.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there are no documented points of contention in the available materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the text alone, could include whether existing fraud statutes already cover this conduct, whether the five-year maximum penalty is appropriate, and whether the definitions of “fraud” and “real estate instrument” are broad enough to capture legitimate conduct without overreach. However, these concerns are not attributed to any specific legislator or stakeholder in the supplied record.