The bill inserts a new section 2113A into Title 18 to criminalize robbery, extortion, tampering, theft, and related conduct involving ATMs that are network‑connected, whether or not the machine sits on a bank's physical premises. It creates graduated property‑theft penalties tied to a $1,000 threshold, an assault enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon, and a mandatory minimum penalty where killing or forcible accompaniment occurs.
The Act also tweaks the classic federal bank‑robbery statute, §2113, replacing “force and violence” with “force or violence” and adding “conspires to take,” which broadens the reach of existing federal bank‑robbery liability. For banks, ATM owners and operators, armored carriers, retailers hosting ATMs, and prosecutors, the statute clarifies federal criminal exposure and raises enforcement and sentencing stakes for a wide range of ATM‑related offenses.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a standalone federal crime (§2113A) for attacks on ATM users, servicers, owners/operators and for unauthorized tampering with network‑connected ATMs. The bill sets tiered penalties: up to 20 years for robbery/extortion of ATM users/servicers; up to 10 years for theft from an ATM exceeding $1,000; up to 1 year where the value removed does not exceed $1,000; up to 25 years where a dangerous weapon is used; and a 10‑year mandatory minimum (or life if death results) when a killing or forcible accompaniment occurs.
Who It Affects
Banks, credit unions, savings associations, ATM owners/operators, independent ATM deployers, retailers that host off‑premises ATMs, armored carriers and delivery personnel, and anyone who receives or traffics in property taken from ATMs. Federal prosecutors, defense counsel, and law enforcement will see broadened case categories.
Why It Matters
The statute makes clear that network‑connected ATMs are federally protected even when they are off bank premises, potentially shifting many ATM crimes from state to federal jurisdiction and standardizing penalties. It also expands the classic bank‑robbery statute to encompass conspirators and to lower the conjunctive burden (“or” instead of “and”), which could change charging and proof strategies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new federal offense cluster targeted specifically at ATMs and people who use, service, transport for, or operate them. It treats an attack on an ATM user, an ATM servicer (for example, a technician or a cash‑in‑transit courier), or an ATM owner/operator engaged in loading/unloading the machine as a federal robbery/extortion offense with a top sentence of 20 years.
That mirrors traditional bank‑robbery logic but ties the protected interest to ATM use, service, or the transport of cash destined for an ATM.
Property offenses are split by value. If an unauthorized actor tampers with an ATM and removes or attempts to remove more than $1,000, the maximum sentence is 10 years; if the value is $1,000 or less, the maximum is 1 year.
The bill also treats the receipt, possession, or sale of property taken in violation of the section as a punishable offense carrying the same statutory range as the underlying taker’s offense, so fences and buyers can face federal exposure equal to the original perpetrator.The bill raises penalties for violence tied to these offenses: assault with a dangerous weapon during an ATM offense carries up to 25 years; and if an offender kills someone, forces someone to accompany them, or otherwise commits conduct that results in death, the statute sets a floor of 10 years and prescribes life imprisonment if death results. The bill defines “ATM” narrowly as a “network‑connected” automated teller machine tied to electronic financial networks and cross‑references the access‑device definition in 18 U.S.C. §1029(e)(1).
Importantly, that definition expressly reaches ATMs not located on a bank’s premises and machines that are bank‑owned but deployed offsite.Finally, the bill amends the existing bank‑robbery provision (§2113) to replace the conjunctive phrase “force and violence” with the disjunctive “force or violence” and to add liability for conspirators. Those two edits lower the statutory threshold at which federal bank‑robbery charges can be brought and make conspiracy a specified basis for charging, aligning §2113 more closely with the new ATM‑specific section and expanding prosecutorial options.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new §2113A(a) makes robbery or extortion of an ATM user, servicer, or owner/operator (including during transport/delivery of ATM cash) punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Section 2113A(b) creates two property‑value tiers: unauthorized removal of more than $1,000 from an ATM carries up to 10 years; $1,000 or less carries up to 1 year.
Section 2113A(c) makes receipt, possession, concealment, barter, sale, or disposal of property taken from an ATM a federal offense carrying the same penalty range as the taker, if the recipient knows the property was unlawfully taken.
The bill’s definition of “ATM” covers only network‑connected automated teller machines and explicitly includes machines owned or sponsored by banks even when located off the bank’s physical premises, and it cross‑references the access‑device definition in 18 U.S.C. §1029(e)(1).
The bill amends §2113 by changing “force and violence” to “force or violence” and adding “or conspires to take,” broadening who can be charged under the existing federal bank‑robbery statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure the “Safe Access to Cash Act of 2026.” This is a purely captioning clause with no substantive effect, but it signals the bill’s policy focus and will appear as the statutory short title if enacted.
Robbery and extortion protections for ATM users and servicers
Subsection (a) criminalizes taking or attempting to take property from any person using or servicing an ATM, or from owners/operators during transport or delivery, by force, violence, or intimidation; it also reaches extortion and conspiracies to take. Practically, prosecutors can charge robbery or extortion when an offense is committed because of ATM use or service, which brings technicians, armored‑car crews, and customers into a protected class similar to bank employees and patrons under existing bank‑robbery law.
Value tiers and prosecution of downstream handlers
Subsection (b) distinguishes major theft (over $1,000) from minor theft (at or below $1,000) with markedly different maximum sentences, creating a bright‑line dollar threshold for charging decisions. Subsection (c) treats knowing receipt or disposition of property taken in violation of the section as an offense carrying the same penalty range as the taker, which makes it easier to pursue fences, resellers, and other downstream actors in federal court instead of relying on separate property‑reception statutes.
Violence enhancements and mandatory minimum for killing or forced accompaniment
Subsection (d) elevates penalties where the offender assaults someone or uses a dangerous weapon, with up to 25 years’ imprisonment. Subsection (e) sets a statutory minimum of 10 years for conduct involving killing or forcible accompaniment during an ATM offense and prescribes life imprisonment if death results. Those provisions insert mandatory‑floor sentencing risk into many ATM prosecutions and give prosecutors leverage in plea negotiations.
Definitions and scope: network‑connected ATMs and included offenses
The definition clause limits protection to ‘network‑connected’ ATMs—machines tied to the major electronic financial networks and linked to the access‑device definition in §1029(e)(1)—and explicitly covers ATMs not sited on bank premises. The included-offenses clause clarifies that the statute reaches conduct ‘in connection with’ ATM use or service and conduct against persons transporting cash destined for machines, closing a potential loophole that might have excluded off‑site ATM attacks.
Amendments to 18 U.S.C. §2113
Makes two targeted edits to the existing federal bank‑robbery statute: (1) replaces the conjunctive ‘force and violence’ with the disjunctive ‘force or violence,’ reducing the prosecution’s burden to show both elements; and (2) explicitly includes conspiracies to take, allowing charges where a defendant participated in planning even if not the principal actor. Both changes align §2113’s language with the broader, ATM‑focused reach of the new §2113A.
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
- Banks, credit unions, and savings associations — Gain clearer federal protection for funds, employees, and off‑site ATM deployments because the statute covers networked ATMs even if they are off bank premises.
- Armored carriers and ATM servicers — Receive federal protection when transporting or delivering cash to ATMs, and can be named protected parties under the robbery provisions, which may increase federal investigative resources for attacks on personnel.
- ATM owners/operators and independent deployers — The law provides a single federal framework for prosecuting tampering and theft, reducing uncertainty about whether state or federal prosecutors will take ATM cases.
- Federal prosecutors and law enforcement — Obtain new charging options (including conspiracy and receiver liability) and higher statutory maxima/mandatory minima to encourage federal prosecution of violent ATM offenses.
- Consumers and ATM users — Potentially benefit from stronger deterrence and a federal response to violent or organized attacks on cash access points.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retailers and third‑party ATM hosts — May face increased expectations to harden machines, invest in security, or coordinate with law enforcement when federal prosecutions follow incidents at hosted ATMs.
- Independent ATM deployers and smaller operators — Could incur compliance and security upgrade costs to reduce federal exposure and may be exposed to federal investigative scrutiny if machines are repeatedly targeted.
- Defendants and public defenders — Face higher federal sentencing exposure (including mandatory minimums) and potentially longer federal custody for offenses that previously might have been prosecuted in state court with lower penalties.
- State prosecutors and courts — May see case‑mix shifts as DOJ elects to take certain ATM cases, complicating resource planning; conversely, states may bear consequences if cases are removed to federal court.
- Armored carriers and contractors — Although protected, they may face higher insurance premiums and contractual pressure to meet security requirements, and could be civilly or administratively liable if negligence contributed to loss.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—uniform federal protection for ATM‑related violence and property loss, and the preservation of prosecutorial discretion and proportionality—but it does so by expanding federal reach and inserting mandatory minimums and receiver liability that can pull routine or low‑value conduct into the federal system; the central dilemma is whether national uniformity and deterrence justify shifting more ATM cases (and harsher sentencing outcomes) from state courts into federal hands.
The statute centralizes federal protection around the concept of a “network‑connected” ATM, which narrows coverage to machines tied into electronic financial networks but simultaneously extends coverage to off‑site machines owned or sponsored by banks. That choice produces implementation questions: vintage or isolated ATMs not connected to those networks may fall outside federal protection, while operators of networked third‑party machines will discover they are effectively treated like bank branches for criminal posture.
The $1,000 threshold that separates felony‑level from misdemeanor‑level property offenses is a hard bright line that is not indexed for inflation and may produce charging anomalies where minor damage yields outsized federal exposure if cash on hand happens to exceed the cut‑off.
The bill also imports several prosecutorial levers that raise fairness and federalism issues. Treating receipt or sale of ATM‑taken property as punishable at the same range as the taker can sweep in low‑level buyers or intermediaries who had limited knowledge of the theft; proving the “knowing” element will be a litigation fault line.
The mandatory 10‑year floor for killing or forcible accompaniment introduces significant sentencing inflexibility, and the substitution of “or” for “and” in §2113 lowers the factual showing required for a federal bank‑robbery conviction. These mechanics increase prosecutorial discretion and could result in federalization of crimes previously handled at the state level.
Operationally, the statute’s reach depends on how courts read “in connection with such use or service” and what counts as an ATM “servicer” or “transport” under the clause that protects owners and operators while engaged in delivering property for ATMs. Those interpretive disputes will determine whether routine retail robberies of an ATM at a corner store are automatically federal offenses or whether proximate causation and intent requirements limit federal jurisdiction.
The bill provides broad tools but leaves several key definitional and evidentiary questions to post‑enactment litigation and DOJ charging guidance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.