Why Elder Financial Abuse Cases Are Often Not Being Charged

Why Elder Financial Abuse Cases Are Often Not Being Charged—and What Civil Lawyers Can Do About It

Sacramento’s June 2024 civil Grand Jury report provides compelling insight into missed opportunities to identify and prosecute financial elder abuse in Sacramento County. While other California Counties performed much better in creating a successful pipeline to identify and prosecute financial elder abuse claims during this same period, this particular civil Grand Jury report makes clear what family members, mandatory reporters, and civil attorneys can do to successfully prosecute financial elder abuse.

The Grand Jury found that of the 11,391 cases opened for alleged financial abuse over six years (2019-2024) in Sacramento County, with 3,987 confirmed, only 1,678 were referred to law enforcement agencies for prosecution. Of those 1,678 cases referred, only 99 resulted in filed charges. sacgrandjury.org

1. Where Are the Common Gaps in the Criminal Prosecution of Financial Abuse – Sacramento Case Study

Resource triage. Adult Protective Services (APS) opened 11,391 financial-abuse investigations in six years yet has only twelve field social workers—seven with master’s degrees—handling every form of elder abuse. sacgrandjury.org

Data black holes. APS still relies on uneven case-entry practices, so referrals cannot be tracked reliably. Law-enforcement agencies rarely send feedback to APS even though Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §15640(f) requires it. sacgrandjury.org

Prosecution priorities. The Sacramento DA does not prosecute stand-alone financial cases unless the loss is “large” or tied to physical abuse, and no detective is dedicated to financial-elder-abuse work. sacgrandjury.org

Mandatory-reporting gaps. Banks, brokers, healthcare providers, and fiduciaries must report suspected abuse to APS. The grand jury report shows inconsistent follow through, especially by financial institutions that treat suspicious-activity reports as compliance exercises rather than triggers for immediate APS calls. sacgrandjury.orgsfhsa.org

Although prosecutors cite evidentiary hurdles like victim memory loss and limited forensic capacity, they state that these issues can cut both ways and find that “juries get it.” Juries can see when individuals have “taken” resources from fragile, trusting, and dependent people. sacgrandjury.org

2. Closing the Mandated-Reporter Loop

California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act requires that financial elder abuse be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15675.5). The Act is detailed and addresses protective orders, statutes of limitations (4 years), recovering damages and restitution, attorney’s fees, prohibited settlement conditions, etc. It also allows for punitive damages when financial elder abuse is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

In California, certain professionals are mandated reporters for suspected financial abuse of elders and dependent adults. (WIC § 15630.1) This includes officers and employees of financial institutions like banks and credit unions.

Civil counsel can reinforce the statutory scheme and work with mandated reporters without becoming deputized investigators:

• Audit the paper trail. Subpoena or demand the APS intake sheet and confirm whether it travelled to law enforcement. If not, raise the oversight with APS counsel and seek a supplemental referral.
• Bundle evidence. Package bank statements, incapacity opinions, and digital-forensic findings in a concise memorandum for detectives. This lowers investigative costs and benefits both sides at mediation.
• Encourage dual-track resolutions. Stipulate that civil settlement talks will not deter later criminal filings, preserving the DA’s autonomy.

3. Pre-Trial Attachment Order Under WIC §§15657.01

WIC § 15657 provides an important legal framework and tools to protect and recover assets from individuals who commit financial abuse against elders and dependent adults. The published portion of the court’s decision in Royals v. Lu, 81 Cal.App.5th 238 (2022) provides some clarity on the pre-trial right to attach orders under California’s Elder Abuse Act. Counsel would be wise to learn from Plaintiff’s filing and pleading errors in this appellate case.

Goal – Preserve funds 

Statutory lever – §15657.01 authorizes prejudgment right-to-attach orders where the plaintiff 

Practical Tips

• File the proposed order concurrently with the petition.
• Use a verified declaration with first-hand knowledge, which includes competent evidence by avoiding reliance “on information and belief” statements

Goal – before judgment

Statutory lever – shows probable validity of an Elder Abuse Act claim. The attachment runs only to compensatory damages plus fees and costs.

Practical Tips:

• Seek an attachable amount based on compensatory damages not based on statutory penalties or punitive damages. (see Royals v. Lu, 81 Cal.App.5th 328 (2022)).

Why plaintiff and defense lawyers should care: Early asset freezes accelerate information exchange, promoting faster global resolution for all parties. Early asset freezes also incentivize prompt forensic audits that may exonerate agents with proper spending records.

4. Building Civil–Criminal Collaboration

Civil litigators and prosecutors often talk past each other. The Sacramento grand jury recommendations offer a blueprint:

• Revive a county-level FAST team. Regular multidisciplinary meetings (APS, DA, law enforcement, civil bar, banks) shorten the hand-off time and surface training needs. sacgrandjury.org
• Create a DA-side intake portal. Civil counsel could upload verified pleadings, freeze-order applications, and medical-capacity opinions. The DA can then triage without duplicating discovery.
• Offer targeted CLE. Defense and plaintiff firms can co-sponsor sessions on forensic accounting standards, thereby lifting the overall evidentiary quality of referrals.
• Negotiate conditional immunity for cooperators. When a fiduciary defendant supplies records promptly, prosecutors may weigh lesser-included charges, while civil plaintiffs secure restitution.

5. Takeaways for Both Sides

• Evidence quality is king. APS social-worker narratives alone rarely meet “probable validity” for attachment. Civil lawyers should endeavor to deliver bank-level spreadsheets and expert declarations.
• Asset freezes are surgical measures. Courts will not permit attachment amounts inflated by punitive or statutory-penalty theories. Plaintiffs should anchor requests to hard-loss figures. Defense teams should move quickly to constrain the scope but avoid reflexive opposition that can look like they are attempting to obstruct the process.
• Parallel paths are complementary, not conflicting. A civil settlement can reimburse the elder while a criminal plea vindicates community norms. Coordinate timelines so neither track torpedoes the other.
• Data integrity matters. Without reliable APS-to-law-enforcement feedback loops, both prosecution and settlement valuations suffer. Lawyers from either side can press agencies for compliance with WIC §15640(f) requirements that they report the results of their investigations of referrals or reports of abuse.

Financial exploitation erodes not only nest eggs but also autonomy and dignity. Sacramento’s civil grand jury’s 2024 data shows that the criminal justice system alone will not fix the problem. Civil lawyers, plaintiff and defense alike, possess statutory tools to secure assets, clarify facts, and prod public agencies toward action. When those tools are used strategically and even collaboratively, elders stand a far better chance of real justice, and the community gains a roadmap for future cases.

This article is for educational discussion among legal professionals and does not constitute legal advice. All statutory references are to California law.