Defense in Welfare Fraud

It is this writer’s impression that most defenses of welfare fraud follow [a] stereotyped pattern. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the defendant. Counsel negotiates a plea without trial. It makes for expedient criminal justice, swift in dealing with those social parasites who would cynically mulct our welfare agencies of precious tax dollars, fully knowing that were their true situation known to the agency no aid would be granted.

But there is another dimension to the prosecution of welfare fraud. It concerns welfare administration of suspected fraud cases before the prosecution stage is reached. The attorney who familiarizes himself with this aspect may find a number of legal issues on which the outcome of the otherwise incontestable case would depend. He might even begin to doubt whether some of those who at first blush appear guilty have really committed a crime.

The purpose of this Note is to outline these issues, showing their relation to defense in welfare fraud prosecution. But there is another dimension to the prosecution of welfare fraud. It concerns welfare administration of suspected fraud cases before the prosecution stage is reached. The attorney who familiarizes himself with this aspect may find a number of legal issues on which the outcome of the otherwise incontestable case would depend.

He might even begin to doubt whether some of those who at first blush appear guilty have really committed a crime. The purpose of this Note is to outline these issues, showing their relation to defense in welfare fraud prosecution.