 |
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-Sixth Legislature, First Regular Session
VETOED
fraudulent schemes; artifices; jurisdiction
Purpose
Specifies that, when prosecuting a person for fraudulent schemes or artifices, the state is not required to establish that all of the unlawful acts occurred in Arizona or within a single city, town, county or local jurisdiction of Arizona, and that it is not a defense that not all of the unlawful acts occurred in Arizona or within political subdivisions of Arizona.
Background
A person who, in accordance with a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony. If the person who is convicted of the violation had a benefit with a value of $100,000 or greater or if the act involved the manufacture, sale or marketing of opioids, the convicted person is not eligible for a suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis unless otherwise outlined by statute (A.R.S. § 13-2310). For a first-time felony offender, a class 2 felony carries a presumptive imprisonment sentence of 5 years and a fine of not more than $150,000 to be determined by the court (A.R.S. §§ 13-702 and 13-801).
In determining
the classification of the offense, the state is allowed to aggregate the
indictment or information amounts taken in thefts committed in accordance with
one scheme or course of conduct, whether the amounts were taken from one or
several persons (A.R.S.
§ 13-1801).
A scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive a person of the intangible right of honest services (A.R.S. § 13-2310).
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. Specifies that, in a prosecution for fraudulent schemes and artifices, the state is not required to establish that all of the acts that constitute the offense occurred in Arizona or within a single city, town, county or local jurisdiction of Arizona.
2. Specifies that it is not a defense that not all of the acts that constitute the offense occurred in Arizona or within a single city, town, county or local jurisdiction of Arizona.
3. Makes technical and conforming changes.
4. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Governor's Veto Message
The Governor indicates in her veto message that existing state law adequately outlines the jurisdictional issues addressed in H.B. 2297.
House Action Senate Action
JUD 2/8/23 DP 5-3-0-0 JUD 3/09/23 DP 5-2-0
3rd Read 2/21/23 DP 31-29-0 3rd Read 4/11/23 16-13-1
Vetoed by the Governor 4/17/23
Prepared by Senate Research
April 18, 2023
ZD/SB/sr