The bill amends 38 U.S.C. §5905 to reintroduce penalties for persons who solicit, contract for, charge, receive, or attempt those acts in connection with preparing, presenting, or prosecuting claims for VA benefits. It inserts a new subsection that makes such conduct subject to criminal fines under federal criminal law, while preserving existing exceptions in the Code.
This matters to anyone who helps veterans with benefits claims: unaccredited preparers and commercial “claim mills” face renewed criminal exposure; accredited attorneys, agents, and veterans service organizations should confirm they operate under the statutory exceptions; and the Department of Justice and VA will regain a clearer enforcement path against fee fraud. The change aims to reduce predatory fee schemes but raises operational questions about enforcement scope and effects on volunteer assistance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the heading of 38 U.S.C. §5905 and inserts a new subsection (b) that makes it unlawful to solicit, contract for, charge, receive, or attempt to obtain any fee or compensation tied to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of VA benefit claims. The new provision exposes violators to criminal fines under the federal criminal code (title 18), while preserving statutory exceptions.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are unaccredited individuals and businesses that charge veterans for preparing or filing claims outside the VA accreditation system. Secondary impacts reach accredited attorneys and agents (who must document authorized fees), VA regional offices (complaint intake and evidence gathering), pro bono clinics and volunteer preparers (potential chilling effects), and federal prosecutors who would carry the new criminal cases.
Why It Matters
The amendment restores a criminal deterrent previously removed or weakened in practice and complements VA’s civil withholding authority, shifting some enforcement responsibility to criminal prosecutors. For compliance officers and veteran-serving organizations, the bill changes the risk calculus for fee arrangements and increases the need for clear accreditation and fee-disclosure practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three compact edits to 38 U.S.C. §5905. First, it pluralizes the section heading to “Penalties,” a small drafting change that signals more than one enforcement tool.
Second, it labels the existing civil remedy as subsection (a) — “WITHHOLDING OF BENEFITS” — so the statute explicitly separates civil withholding from the new criminal provision. Third, and most important, it adds subsection (b) that bars anyone from soliciting, contracting for, charging, receiving, or attempting those acts when the fee or compensation relates to preparing, presenting, or prosecuting a VA benefits claim.
Subsection (b) does not invent a new administrative fine schedule or a specific dollar amount; instead it makes the conduct punishable under the federal criminal code by subjecting violators to fines as provided in title 18. The bill also preserves exceptions already in the statute: it does not reach fee arrangements expressly authorized elsewhere in title 38 (the bill cites sections 5904 and 1984).
Practically, that leaves accredited representatives and authorized fee agreements outside the new criminal exposure if they follow the governing rules.On enforcement and practice, the amendment creates a parallel path to address fee fraud. VA’s existing ability to withhold benefits for improper fees remains a civil remedy handled within the benefits system; the new criminal provision gives prosecutors a tool to bring charges against predatory preparers.
That shifts some burden to US Attorneys and the Department of Justice for investigating and proving criminal intent or attempts, and it requires VA to collect and preserve evidence usable in criminal prosecutions.For people and organizations that assist veterans, the bill raises compliance questions: what counts as “preparation, presentation, or prosecution” versus permissible advice; when a volunteer becomes a de facto preparer; and how to document authority under sections that allow fees. Those practical uncertainties will likely prompt requests for VA guidance and could require internal policy changes at veteran-serving nonprofits and law firms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill changes the §5905 heading from “Penalty” to “Penalties,” reflecting both civil and criminal remedies.
It inserts an explicit subsection label—'(a) WITHHOLDING OF BENEFITS'—so VA’s civil withholding authority is preserved and separately identified.
It adds a new subsection (b) making it unlawful to solicit, contract for, charge, receive, or attempt those acts for any fee or compensation tied to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of VA claims.
Rather than setting a dollar amount or a new administrative sanction, the bill makes violations punishable by a criminal fine under title 18 of the United States Code.
The new criminal bar expressly excludes conduct authorized by 38 U.S.C. §§5904 or 1984, preserving statutorily permitted fee arrangements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: GUARD VA Benefits Act
This is the act’s identifying name. Naming is consequential in practice: stakeholders will refer to the short title in guidance, compliance memos, and litigation, so the label signals the bill’s focus on guarding veterans from fee abuse by unaccredited preparers.
Change heading to 'Penalties'
The bill amends the section heading in 38 U.S.C. §5905 from singular to plural. That mechanical change updates the table of sections and clarifies the statute contemplates multiple enforcement mechanisms rather than a single remedy — a textual cue that the statute will separately address different types of penalties.
Preserves VA’s civil withholding authority
By inserting the label '(a) WITHHOLDING OF BENEFITS.—' immediately before the existing text, the bill explicitly preserves the civil remedy that allows the VA to withhold benefits or pursue administrative sanctions for improper fee arrangements. Practically, that ensures the statutory civil tools remain intact and distinct from the new criminal provision.
Criminal prohibition on unauthorized fees
The core operative change is subsection (b), which forbids soliciting, contracting for, charging, receiving, or attempting those acts where the fee relates to preparing, presenting, or prosecuting a claim for VA benefits. The provision extends to 'attempts' as well as completed transactions and ties punishment to the federal criminal code’s fine regime. The statute expressly exempts actions authorized under 38 U.S.C. §§5904 and 1984, so accredited or statutorily permitted fee arrangements remain outside the criminal ban.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans 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
- Veterans filing claims — The bill targets predatory fee schemes, reducing the risk that veterans will be charged unlawful fees and lose benefits to unscrupulous preparers.
- Accredited representatives and attorneys — Reinstating criminal penalties helps level the playing field by deterring unaccredited actors who undercut accredited practitioners by charging illegal fees.
- Department of Justice and federal prosecutors — The statute creates a clearer criminal hook for prosecutions, enabling DOJ to pursue fee fraud as a federal offense rather than relying solely on administrative remedies.
- Accredited veterans-service organizations — By narrowing fraudulent actors’ operating space, accredited organizations may see fewer competitors making misleading promises, protecting their reputations and client relationships.
Who Bears the Cost
- Unaccredited preparers and commercial 'claim mills' — Individuals and firms that charge veterans for claims assistance without statutory authorization face renewed criminal exposure and potential fines.
- Volunteer and informal helpers — The broad language (including 'attempts') may chill volunteers or informal advocates who are unsure whether their assistance crosses into prohibited preparer activity, increasing compliance burdens for nonprofit clinics.
- VA and federal prosecutors — The change shifts some enforcement work to DOJ and requires VA to collect admissible evidence and coordinate with prosecutors, potentially adding investigative and administrative load without dedicated funding.
- Small community organizations that assist veterans — These groups may need to invest in training, accreditation, or legal review to avoid inadvertent violations, imposing administrative costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting veterans from predatory fee schemes while preserving access to legitimate, often volunteer, assistance: criminal law is a strong deterrent but risks chilling useful help and shifting significant investigatory and prosecutorial burdens onto VA and DOJ without specifying resources or detailed definitions.
The bill’s operative language is concise but leaves open several implementation questions. 'Preparation, presentation, or prosecution' is a broad phrase; courts and agencies will likely need to define its boundaries. Does reviewing a completed form, helping a veteran understand a denial letter, or pointing to statutory sources count as 'preparation' or as protected advice?
The inclusion of 'attempts' broadens exposure but raises evidentiary issues — prosecutors must prove a culpable attempt, not merely an initial contact or an offer to help.
Enforcement logistics are also unresolved. The bill makes the conduct punishable under title 18 but sets no new investigative authority or funding stream for VA or DOJ.
Successful criminal prosecutions will depend on VA’s capacity to detect violations, preserve contemporaneous records, and provide witnesses; in many fee-scam scenarios perpetrators operate online or across state lines, complicating investigations. Finally, while the statute exempts conduct authorized under §§5904 and 1984, those cross-references create a two-step analysis for compliance: organizations must both verify accreditation status and ensure fee arrangements meet the rules in the cited sections, which themselves may need clarification through VA guidance or regulation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.