Tennessee Senate Bill SB1920

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to theft.

Summary

SB1920 creates a new offense called telecommunication fraud in Tennessee law. A person commits the offense when, with intent to deprive the owner of property, they use a telecommunication device to fraudulently obtain or exercise control over another person’s property without effective consent. The bill places this conduct within the state’s theft framework and ties punishment to Tennessee’s theft penalty statute. Under the bill, telecommunication fraud is punished as theft under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-105, but it cannot be punished as less than a Class E felony. The bill defines “telecommunication device” by reference to an existing criminal code definition in § 39-16-201. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill amends Title 39, Chapter 14, Part 1 of the Tennessee Code by adding a specific theft-related offense for fraud carried out through telecommunication devices. It expands the state’s criminal law to address scams and property crimes committed by phone or other telecommunications technology, and it establishes a minimum felony classification for this conduct. The measure would affect prosecutors, defendants accused of fraud, and victims of telecommunication-based theft, while incorporating an existing statutory definition for the device used.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage by a 9-0 vote, indicating unanimous support in that committee. No opposing testimony or recorded committee debate is provided in the available materials.

Contention

The main policy issue appears to be how broadly to criminalize and punish fraud committed through telecommunications, and whether the bill’s mandatory minimum felony treatment is appropriate for all covered conduct. Because the bill sets telecommunication fraud at no less than a Class E felony, any concern would likely center on proportionality, charging discretion, and overlap with existing theft or fraud statutes. However, the provided record does not show any specific opposition or named critics.