Bill Overview
Title: COVID-19 EIDL Fraud Statute of Limitations Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for criminal charges and civil enforcement against a borrower who engages in fraud with respect to certain COVID-19 economic injury disaster loan programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO-3]
Target Audience
Population: People who engaged in COVID-19 EIDL fraud
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill targets individuals who have engaged in fraud specifically related to COVID-19 economic injury disaster loan programs.
- The fraud related to these loans could potentially involve business owners or individuals who used these loans improperly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- COVID-19 economic injury disaster loan programs were widespread, aiming to help small businesses and other qualifying entities in the United States.
- Such loans were used globally in various forms, but this bill is specific to the US context regarding fraud charges.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals who might have committed fraud related to Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The statute is specifically designed to extend the time frame for prosecuting these fraudulent activities, emphasizing accountability and deterring future fraud.
- Considering the potential civil and criminal liabilities that defrauders might face, the policy directly impacts their future financial and psychological wellbeing.
- Budget allocation must also focus on enforcement mechanisms and the judicial processes necessary to handle the expected cases.
- There are also individuals not impacted by this policy who have used the EIDL funds appropriately.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time.
- This policy makes me anxious about potential charges.
- I want to set things right but fear repercussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tech Start-up Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have nothing to worry about, as I followed all the guidelines.
- I support holding fraudulent users accountable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Accountant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is important for accountability.
- Clients who may have strayed from regulations should be aware of this law.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retail Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn’t commit fraud but worry about audits.
- The policy might create unease but is necessary to handle the dishonest actors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelance Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will lead to many cases being opened against small defrauders.
- It's important, but prolonged stress will be felt especially by those wrongly accused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Non-Profit Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is good to ensure those who exploited the system are held accountable.
- Our organization could see more funding for fraud prevention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Legal Advisor (Boston, MA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's going to be busy processing these cases.
- Legal clarity and awareness are needed for businesses.
- The 10-year period is both necessary and daunting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Bank Loan Officer (Portland, OR)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a good move to rectify any loose ends of the program.
- We need to ensure our review processes were above board.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see those who cheated the system will face consequences.
- I don’t expect this policy to change my wellbeing, as my business was legitimate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Government Auditor (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The workload will likely increase.
- It’s essential to allocate resources effectively to manage these cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Key Considerations
- The statute of limitations extension allows longer time for fraud detection and enforcement, potentially increasing legal costs.
- Successful prosecutions may lead to increased revenue from fines and penalties.
- High variability in the estimate of total fraud cases makes cost projection uncertain.