Back to Bills

Minimum Prison Terms for High-Value Fraud

Full Title:
Zero Tolerance for Fraudsters Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for a set of federal fraud and false-statement crimes and for several mail- and wire-related fraud crimes when the case involves large amounts of money. Its main change is to create two loss-based tiers that trigger minimum prison terms for covered offenses. The stated policy goal is to impose stiffer, fixed penalties on high-value frauds.

  • Main change: For specified federal fraud and false-statement crimes, and for specified mail/wire/related fraud crimes, the bill requires minimum prison terms when the offense “involved” at least $1,000,000.
  • Two tiers: If the amount involved is $1,000,000–$4,999,999, the sentence must be at least 1 year (and up to 10 years). If $5,000,000 or more, the sentence must be at least 5 years (and up to 20 years). Fines also apply.
  • Which crimes: The bill lists specific section numbers in federal law. For the false-statement/fraud group it names several sections often used for false statements and related frauds. For the mail/wire group it covers mail fraud, wire fraud, and related statutes.
  • Overrides some discretion: The new minimums apply “notwithstanding any other provision,” so judges must impose at least the minimum unless the existing statute already calls for a longer prison term.

What it means for you#

  • People charged with covered federal fraud crimes: If prosecutors prove the case and show the loss thresholds, judges would have to impose at least the stated minimum prison term. That reduces judges’ ability to give shorter sentences in individual cases.
  • Defendants who plead guilty: Plea bargaining could change because mandatory minimums limit the sentencing range a plea can avoid. This could increase pressure to negotiate charges or counts.
  • Victims of fraud: Victims would not see a direct new compensation mechanism in this bill, but larger required sentences for offenders could be seen as stronger punishment.
  • Federal prosecutors and law enforcement: Prosecutors would be able to seek mandatory minimum sentences in larger-loss cases covered by the listed statutes. How they charge cases (which statutes and counts) could affect whether the mandatory minimums apply.
  • Federal courts and judges: Judges must apply the minimums when the loss thresholds are met, unless the underlying statute already requires a longer term. This changes sentencing discretion in covered cases.
  • Taxpayers and the federal prison system: If the bill leads to longer average sentences, it could increase the number of people in federal prisons and their time served. The bill text does not include funding or cost offsets.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and associated materials do not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
  • A likely effect could be higher federal prison costs if more defendants receive longer sentences, but the bill provides no estimate of the size of that effect.
  • There is no new funding or fee in the bill text to cover added prison or court costs.
  • Possible indirect costs include increased prosecution, investigation, and appellate work; these are not quantified in the bill materials.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to create tougher, predictable punishments for large-scale fraud.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that higher mandatory minimums could deter high-value fraud by raising the expected penalty for big schemes.
  • Supporters may see mandatory minimums as a way to ensure more uniform punishment across districts for serious financial crimes.
  • The bill targets high-loss cases, so proponents could argue it focuses punishment on the most harmful frauds.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill reduces judges’ ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances by imposing fixed minimums for many non-violent offenses.
  • The bill does not explain how to measure the “amount involved” (for example, whether it is total intended loss, actual loss, or how multiple counts combine). This ambiguity could cause disputes in charging and sentencing.
  • The bill could increase federal prison populations and related costs; no fiscal estimate is provided.
  • Mandatory minimums can change plea bargaining dynamics, potentially pressuring defendants to plead guilty to avoid higher mandatory terms even when there may be mitigating facts.
  • The bill does not address interactions with existing sentencing rules or guidelines (for example, how these minimums work alongside loss-based sentencing enhancements), leaving implementation questions for courts and prosecutors.