(561)988-8000 Welfare Fraud
Welfare Fraud – Withhold of Adjudication – Broward County
Welfare Fraud (Fla. Stat. §§ 414.39(1)(a), 414.39(5)(b)) – Broward County, Florida
In Broward County, Florida, our client was charged with Welfare Fraud under Florida Statutes §§ 414.39(1)(a) and 414.39(5)(b) following a lengthy investigation conducted by the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Public Assistance Fraud, and the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Prosecutors alleged that the client knowingly failed to accurately disclose employment income while receiving public assistance benefits, including Food Assistance and Medicaid benefits, over an extended multi-year period.
According to the investigative materials and charging documents, the State alleged that between June 18, 2018 and December 31, 2020, the client submitted multiple applications, eligibility reviews, and change reports that understated her actual income while employed. Investigators claimed that the client reported significantly reduced earnings to DCF despite allegedly earning substantially higher wages during the relevant periods.
The investigation involved a detailed review of:
- payroll records,
- employment verification documents,
- DCF eligibility applications,
- telephone interview records,
- Food Assistance and Medicaid program reports,
- and multiple years of wage documentation.
Investigators specifically alleged that the client repeatedly reported biweekly earnings ranging from approximately $80 to $280 during DCF eligibility reviews, while payroll records obtained from Sonny’s Enterprises allegedly reflected substantially higher actual gross income during those same periods.
The State’s investigation further claimed that:
- the client had been employed by since approximately December 2009,
- she continued working there throughout the investigation period,
- and payroll records reflected actual earnings allegedly totaling more than $13,000 during certain reviewed pay periods, substantially exceeding the income figures reported to DCF.
Investigators also alleged that the client received approximately:
- $13,990.00 in Food Assistance benefits,
- and $19,685.09 in Medicaid program benefits,
for which the State claimed she was not legally entitled based upon the alleged underreporting of income.
The State further relied upon:
- sworn investigative affidavits,
- DCF witness testimony,
- employment records,
- payroll custodian testimony,
- and alleged discrepancies between submitted paystubs and certified payroll records maintained by the employer.
Particularly significant to the investigation were allegations from the employer’s payroll department claiming that certain submitted paystubs did not match authentic company payroll records and that some payroll documents allegedly contained discrepancies involving wage calculations, pay rates, and formatting. Investigators further alleged that the reported pay information provided to DCF was inconsistent with the client’s actual gross earnings reflected in payroll databases.
As a result of these allegations, the client faced serious felony exposure, including:
- the possibility of incarceration,
- substantial restitution claims,
- probation,
- fraud-related collateral consequences,
- professional and employment repercussions,
- and the stigma associated with a felony theft or fraud conviction.
The defense conducted an extensive and highly detailed review of the State’s evidence, including:
- financial documentation,
- payroll summaries,
- eligibility review records,
- agency calculations,
- witness disclosures,
- and the chronology of DCF applications and benefit determinations.
Particular attention was devoted to evaluating:
- the accuracy of the State’s calculations,
- the methodology used to determine alleged overpayments,
- the reliability of payroll documentation,
- and the State’s ability to establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt—an essential element in welfare fraud prosecutions.
Through careful preparation, strategic negotiations, and extensive mitigation advocacy, the defense presented substantial mitigating factors concerning the client’s employment history, background, personal circumstances, and the complex nature of the reporting requirements involved in public assistance eligibility determinations. The defense worked aggressively to minimize the long-term consequences associated with the allegations and avoid the devastating impact of a felony conviction.
RESULT: The case was successfully resolved with a withholding of adjudication and a very short period of probation.
OUTCOME: The client avoided a formal felony conviction, avoided incarceration, and substantially reduced the long-term consequences associated with a welfare fraud prosecution. The favorable resolution preserved important future employment and personal opportunities while minimizing the lasting impact of the allegations.
This case highlights the importance of detailed financial analysis, strategic negotiation, and early intervention in complex fraud-related prosecutions involving extensive documentary evidence, government agency investigations, and allegations spanning multiple years.
