HB153 adds R.S. 15:571.11(P) to prohibit referring debts for criminal fines or conviction fees—arising from state law or parish ordinance violations—to the Department of Revenue's Office of Debt Recovery. The bill also bars reporting those debts to any credit bureau or consumer reporting agency.
This matters for local courts, clerks, parish and municipal governments, and defendants because it removes two common enforcement tools: state-level centralized collection and credit-report pressure. That change could reduce outside collection activity and protect people’s credit, but it raises unanswered questions about how jurisdictions will recover revenue or enforce compliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill enacts R.S. 15:571.11(P), which forbids referring unpaid criminal fines or conviction fees to the Department of Revenue’s Office of Debt Recovery and forbids reporting those debts to credit bureaus or consumer reporting agencies. It does not repeal other statutory collection authorities elsewhere in law.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include parish and municipal courts and clerks that assess and try to collect fines and fees, the Department of Revenue’s Office of Debt Recovery (which will no longer receive these referrals), and individuals obligated to pay criminal fines or conviction fees. Credit reporting agencies and private collection vendors will also be affected where referrals and reporting currently occur.
Why It Matters
The bill removes two leverage points that encourage payment—centralized state collection and adverse credit reporting—potentially improving access to credit for people with criminal debts but reducing revenue streams and collection leverage used by local governments. Compliance officers and municipal finance officials must reassess collection workflows and revenue projections if enacted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB153 makes a narrow but concrete change to Louisiana law by adding subsection P to R.S. 15:571.11. The new subsection says that any debt composed of a fine or a conviction fee in criminal prosecutions—whether for violations of state statutes or parish ordinances—cannot be referred to the Department of Revenue’s Office of Debt Recovery for collection and cannot be reported to a credit bureau or consumer reporting agency.
The text is limited in scope: it targets referral to that named state office and the act of reporting to consumer reporting entities.
The bill does not abolish fines or conviction fees, nor does it amend other collection authorities that appear elsewhere in state law. That means counties, municipalities, and clerks retain whatever local statutory tools they already have unless those tools expressly rely on referral to the state office or on credit reporting.
The Department of Revenue’s broader statutory powers remain on the books, but this provision creates a categorical exception for criminal fines and conviction fees.Implementation questions follow immediately from the statute’s economy of words. The bill does not state whether previously referred debts or already-reported entries must be removed from credit files (no retroactivity clause), nor does it specify alternative enforcement paths—e.g., civil suits, wage garnishment, administrative holds, or license suspensions—so local actors must determine which lawful options remain.
The law also is silent about restitution or victim compensation: its text targets fines and conviction fees specifically, which are usually distinct from restitution obligations ordered to compensate victims.For practitioners this means two things: first, jurisdictions that relied on the Office of Debt Recovery or credit reporting as primary collection levers will need to design substitute procedures and budget for lower recoveries; second, defense counsel and reentry advisers can rely on a statutory bar to referral and reporting (if the bill passes) but should monitor guidance about whether courts must purge past reports or how courts will handle compliance enforcement going forward.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill enacts R.S. 15:571.11(P) to create a categorical prohibition on certain debt collection actions for criminal fines and conviction fees.
It forbids referring debts for criminal fines or conviction fees to the Department of Revenue’s Office of Debt Recovery—no exceptions stated in the text.
It forbids reporting those debts to a credit bureau or consumer reporting agency, using the statutory phrases "credit bureau" and "consumer reporting agency.", Coverage explicitly includes fines and conviction fees arising from violations of state law or parish ordinances; the text does not mention restitution or other victim-ordered payments.
The text contains no retroactivity clause, no enforcement mechanism for the new prohibitions, and does not specify alternative collection tools localities must or may use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a specific prohibition on two collection channels
This single enactment adds subsection P to the existing dispositional statute for fines and forfeitures. Mechanically it names two forbidden actions: (1) referring criminal fine/fee debts to the Dept. of Revenue’s Office of Debt Recovery; and (2) reporting those debts to credit bureaus or consumer reporting agencies. Because it amends the dispositional statute rather than the Office of Debt Recovery statute, the change reads as a carve‑out preventing that office from handling this category of debt even while leaving the office’s other functions intact.
Specifies which monetary obligations are protected from referral/reporting
The provision identifies "a fine or conviction fee in criminal cases and prosecutions for violations of state law or parish ordinances." That wording captures both state-level criminal assessments and local ordinance fines, which broadens application beyond only felony/misdemeanor criminal courts to municipal/parish ordinance enforcement. It does not reference restitution or civil judgments, so those remain outside this prohibition unless addressed elsewhere.
Leaves existing collection tools and the Office's other powers untouched
The digest and text leave intact the Office of Debt Recovery’s general statutory existence and authority; HB153 simply prohibits referrals of this specific debt type to that office. The law does not repeal or amend other statutory collection mechanisms—such as in-court enforcement, holds on licenses, or private collection contracts—so local actors retain any non-prohibited collection powers unless other statutes constrain them.
No process rules, no retroactivity, no penalties specified
The statute sets categorical prohibitions but does not create an administrative enforcement mechanism, timeline for compliance, or statutory penalty for improper referrals or reports. It also does not address whether debts already referred or already on consumer files must be removed, leaving open questions that implementing guidance or litigation will likely resolve.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals with criminal fines or conviction fees: The ban on state referrals and credit reporting reduces a common pathway to creditscore damage and subsequent financial exclusion, improving credit stability for people with these debts.
- Low‑ and moderate‑income defendants: Those least able to absorb collection costs disproportionately benefit because credit reporting often compounds financial distress and blocks access to loans, housing, and employment checks tied to credit histories.
- Defense attorneys and reentry service providers: They gain a statutory hook to argue against credit-based sanctions and to advise clients that unpaid fines should not be reported to consumer reporting agencies if the statute applies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Parish and municipal governments (and their courts/clerks): These local actors lose one avenue for recovering unpaid fines and may see lower collections or incur new administrative costs to pursue alternate enforcement methods.
- Department of Revenue — Office of Debt Recovery: The office will be unable to accept referrals for this category, narrowing its recoverable inventory and reducing potential recoveries and service economies tied to aggregated portfolios.
- Private collection vendors and credit reporting intermediaries: Businesses that currently process referrals or monetize delinquent criminal fines will lose business tied to these referrals and reporting; contracts may need renegotiation or termination.
- Court systems and judges: Without credit reporting and state referral backstops, courts may face more unpaid fines on dockets and pressure to adopt other compliance measures or enforcement hearings, increasing court workload and administrative burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate goals: protecting people from long-term credit harm caused by criminal fine reporting versus preserving effective tools for jurisdictions to collect fines that fund public services and enforce court orders; the bill curtails powerful collection levers without prescribing alternative, equitable ways for governments to recover owed monies.
HB153’s narrow language solves a clear harm—credit reporting of criminal fine debts—but leaves several operational questions unresolved. The statute forbids two specific actions but does not state whether agencies must purge existing credit reports or recall already-sent referrals; that silence creates immediate litigation and administrative risk.
Localities that relied on the Office of Debt Recovery will either absorb revenue losses or pivot to other mechanisms that the statute does not bar, such as in-court enforcement, civil judgment procedures, administrative license holds, or contracting with private collectors—each of which carries distinct legal and equity implications.
Another trade-off is fiscal: many parishes and municipalities use fine and fee revenue to fund court operations, public safety programs, or local budgets. Removing state-level collection and credit-report leverage will likely reduce collections unless jurisdictions adopt other, potentially more coercive, methods.
The bill also draws a line between fines/conviction fees and restitution; because restitution to victims is not mentioned, providers and advocates for victims should confirm whether existing victim-compensation channels remain fully enforceable. Finally, absent an enforcement mechanism, compliance will depend on guidance, interagency coordination, and possibly case law to clarify the statute’s reach and retroactivity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.