What changed between these versions
The bill undergoes substantive modifications, primarily narrowing the scope of criminal liability for ATM-related offenses by removing conspiracy and attempt provisions in specific contexts. It also deletes proposed amendments to the general bank robbery statute and revises sentencing for severe offenses, introducing a 'knowing' requirement for certain victims.
Overview
A significant number of changes are present, affecting multiple subsections within the newly proposed ATM robbery statute and deleting an entire section that proposed amendments to existing law. · The overall direction of v3 is to narrow the scope of certain criminal liabilities, refine definitions and conditions for offenses, and adjust sentencing provisions, while also removing a proposed amendment to existing bank robbery law.
v3 significantly narrows the scope of offenses related to ATM robbery by removing conspiracy charges for certain acts and requiring a 'direct and immediate connection' for offenses against ATM users. It also eliminates attempts for property-related offenses and introduces a 'knowing' requirement for crimes against ATM service personnel. Furthermore, v3 completely removes the proposed amendments to the existing bank robbery statute (18 U.S.C. 2113) that were present in v2.
Deletions
v2 included 'or conspires to take,' and 'or from any person having used or serviced an ATM' in the description of offenses. It also included 'or conspires to obtain by extortion'.
The deletion removes conspiracy as a specific element for taking property from ATM users/servicers and for extortion in this context. It also removes protection for persons 'having used' an ATM, focusing only on those 'using or servicing, or attempting to use or service,' thereby narrowing the temporal scope of the offense.
v2 included 'or attempts to break into, tamper with, damage, remove, or steal' in the definition of property offenses.
The deletion removes explicit criminalization of attempts for property-related offenses against ATMs, meaning the offense now requires the actual act of breaking into, tampering with, damaging, removing, or stealing, rather than merely attempting these actions.
v2 stated that receiving or possessing unlawfully taken property applied to violations of 'subsection (a) or (b)' and included 'or conspires to do so'.
The deletion limits the application of this provision to property taken in violation of subsection (b) (property offenses) only, excluding property taken from persons under subsection (a). It also removes the conspiracy element for receiving or possessing such property.
v2 included a definition for 'Extortion' by referencing section 1951(b)(2) of title 18.
The deletion removes the explicit definition of 'extortion' for this section. While the term 'extorts or attempts to obtain by extortion' remains in Section 2(a), its specific definition within this section is no longer provided.
v2 contained a subsection clarifying the scope of offenses defined in subsections (a) and (b), detailing scenarios involving ATMs, users, servicers, and transporters of property for ATMs.
The deletion removes this explicit clarification of included offenses, potentially leaving the interpretation solely to the language within subsections (a) and (b) themselves.
v2 included a separate Section 3 that proposed amendments to Section 2113(a) of title 18, United States Code, to change 'force and violence' to 'force or violence' and to insert 'or conspires to take,' into the existing bank robbery statute.
The deletion entirely removes the proposed amendments to the general bank robbery statute. This means that the existing bank robbery law (18 U.S.C. 2113) will not be modified by this bill, keeping its original language regarding 'force and violence' and not adding 'conspires to take' to it.
Modifications
This modification limits the applicability of the offense to situations where the criminal act has a more direct and immediate link to the ATM's use or service, potentially excluding crimes that are more tangentially related.
Before
v2 stated offenses were committed 'in connection with such use or service'.
After
v3 specifies offenses must be committed 'in direct and immediate connection with such use or service'.
This change introduces a higher burden of proof for the prosecution, requiring them to demonstrate that the offender knew the victim was involved in ATM property transport or delivery. This could make it more challenging to prosecute such offenses unless the offender's knowledge can be established.
Before
v2 described offenses against 'any owner or operator of any network-connected ATM while such person is engaged in transporting or delivering property that is to be inserted into any such ATM, or from any person engaged in such transport or delivery under contract with, or employment by, any such owner or operator'.
After
v3 rephrases this to 'from any owner or operator of any ATM, while knowing that such person is engaged in transporting or delivering property to be loaded into such ATM, or from any person, knowing such person to be engaged in the transport or delivery of property to be loaded into such ATM, pursuant to a contract with, or employment by, such owner or operator'.
This modification clarifies that the mere unauthorized removal of property is not sufficient for an offense; the perpetrator must have the specific intent to steal or purloin the property, potentially increasing the burden of proof for prosecutors.
Before
v2 described removing property from an ATM.
After
v3 adds the phrase ', with intent to steal or purloin,' after 'removes' when describing the act of taking property from an ATM.
This provides a more direct and positive definition for the lower-value property offense, aligning its language with the higher-value offense and the new intent requirement.
Before
v2 defined offenses not exceeding $1,000 as when the offender 'does not remove or attempt to remove any property or money from any such ATM exceeding $1,000'.
After
v3 defines this as when the offender 'removes, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money from any such ATM not exceeding $1,000'.
For non-fatal forced accompaniment, the change from 'not less than 10 years' to 'not more than 30 years' removes a mandatory minimum sentence, allowing for greater judicial discretion in sentencing up to 30 years. For cases resulting in death, the clarification from 'life imprisonment' to 'any term of years or life' provides more flexibility in sentencing, allowing for a long fixed term or life imprisonment.
Before
v2 specified a penalty of 'imprisoned not less than 10 years, or, if death results, shall be punished by life imprisonment.' The heading was 'Killing or Forcible Accompaniment'.
After
v3 changes the penalty to 'imprisoned not more than 30 years, or, if death results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or life.' The heading is changed to 'Killing or Forced Accompaniment'.
Scope
Meaningful expansion or narrowing — The changes are concentrated within the newly proposed Section 2113A, affecting multiple subsections, and include the complete deletion of a separate section that proposed amendments to existing law. — v3 represents a meaningful narrowing of the scope of criminal liability for ATM-related offenses, particularly by removing conspiracy and attempt elements in several instances, adding a 'knowing' requirement for certain victims, and tightening the connection required for offenses against ATM users. It also reverses the policy direction of amending the general bank robbery statute. — The deletion of Section 3 means that v3 no longer interacts with or modifies the existing bank robbery provisions in 18 U.S.C. 2113, which v2 had proposed to amend. The changes within Section 2113A refine its internal operative mechanisms.
Impact analysis
Individuals accused of ATM-related offenses
Beneficial, as it limits potential criminal liability.
The scope of actions considered criminal is narrowed, particularly regarding conspiracy, attempts for property offenses, and the required connection to ATM use. A 'knowing' intent is also added for certain victim categories.
Prosecutors and law enforcement investigating ATM-related offenses
Detrimental, as it potentially limits their ability to bring charges or secure convictions for certain actions.
The burden of proof for certain offenses is increased (e.g., requiring 'direct and immediate connection,' 'knowing' intent, and 'intent to steal or purloin'). Conspiracy charges are removed for specific acts.
Victims of ATM-related offenses who have 'used' an ATM but are no longer 'using or servicing, or attempting to use or service' it
Detrimental, as it narrows the scope of protection.
The explicit protection for persons 'having used' an ATM is removed.
Individuals convicted of killing or forced accompaniment in connection with ATM offenses
Potentially beneficial, as it removes a mandatory minimum sentence.
The mandatory minimum sentence of 'not less than 10 years' for non-fatal forced accompaniment is removed and replaced with a maximum of 'not more than 30 years.' The sentencing for death resulting is clarified to 'any term of years or life.'
Individuals involved in bank robbery (under 18 U.S.C. 2113)
Neutral to detrimental, as the proposed expansions of liability in v2 for bank robbery are not enacted.
v2 proposed to amend 18 U.S.C. 2113 to include 'conspires to take' and change 'force and violence' to 'force or violence.' v3 deletes this proposed amendment.