BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 975 |
By: Giddings |
Investments & Financial Services |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties contend that there have been too many cases of credit services organizations filing bad-faith criminal complaints against consumers and that consumers should be protected from this behavior. C.S.H.B. 975 seeks to provide this protection by prohibiting a credit services organization or its representatives from filing or threatening to file certain criminal complaints against a consumer without certain evidence.
|
||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 975 amends the Finance Code to prohibit a credit services organization or a representative of a credit services organization from filing a criminal complaint or threatening to file a criminal complaint related to an extension of consumer credit against the consumer for an offense of theft, theft of service, or issuance of a bad check or similar sight order or referring or threatening to refer a consumer to a prosecutor for the collection and processing of a check or similar sight order that was issued in relation to an extension of consumer credit unless the credit services organization or representative has extrinsic evidence sufficient to prove that the consumer has committed such an offense. The bill establishes that evidence of a denied or returned payment due to insufficient funds or account closure is not extrinsic evidence of an offense of theft, theft of service, or issuance of a bad check or similar sight order and establishes that extrinsic evidence of such offenses includes evidence that the consumer was not an authorized user of the account on which the payment was drawn at the time the payment was provided.
|
||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.
|
||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 975 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||
|