AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29 and Title 39, relative to interference with property.
Summary
HB1295 creates a new criminal offense for interfering with another person’s receipt of a loan, grant, or other financial assistance that the person or entity is lawfully entitled to receive from federal, state, or local government. The bill states that the offense is committed when a person acts with the intent to deprive the recipient of that assistance. It also names the measure the “Shielding Tennesseans from Oligarchic Power and Eliminating Lawless Obstruction of Necessities Act (STOP ELON Act).”
The bill classifies a violation as theft under Tennessee’s theft penalty statute, and it allows aggregation of the value of multiple criminal acts charged in a single violation to determine the amount involved. In addition to criminal punishment, the bill gives the victim a civil cause of action to recover funds they did not receive because of the interference. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1295 would add a new offense to Tennessee’s criminal code in Title 39 and create a related civil remedy for victims. It would expand theft-related liability to cover intentional interference with government-backed financial benefits, including loans, grants, and assistance from any level of government, and would allow prosecutors to aggregate multiple acts for valuation purposes. The bill would also affect potential civil litigation by authorizing victims to sue to recover lost funds.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a consumer- or beneficiary-protection bill aimed at preventing intentional obstruction of public financial assistance.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the breadth of the new offense and how it would be applied in practice, especially the phrase “interferes with the receipt” and the requirement of intent to deprive. Questions could also arise about whether the bill reaches private actors, advocacy efforts, administrative conduct, or other conduct that affects access to benefits. The bill’s politically charged title may also draw attention, but no specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided materials.