What Happens If You Use Someone Else’s EBT Card?

Using someone else’s EBT card without permission is a federal crime that can bring fines, prison time, loss of your own SNAP eligibility, and an obligation to pay the money back. Penalties scale with the dollar value of the benefits involved, from a misdemeanor at the low end to a felony carrying up to 20 years in prison when the amount reaches $5,000 or more. There is one legal path for shopping with another person’s card: the cardholder can formally designate you as an authorized representative for the household.

When It’s Actually Legal

Federal SNAP rules let a household designate an authorized representative who can use the household’s EBT card to buy food. A household can also allow any member or nonmember to use its card, as long as the cardholder authorizes it. An authorized representative can go further than shopping — they can handle the application, report income changes, and manage other program responsibilities for the household.

The designation carries responsibility. If the representative gives wrong information or misuses benefits, the household is on the hook for any overpayment. A state agency that finds an authorized representative knowingly gave false information or misused benefits can bar that person from serving as a representative for up to a year.

Not everyone qualifies. People currently under an intentional program violation disqualification generally cannot serve, and neither can EBT-authorized retailers, homeless meal providers for SNAP recipients, or anyone with a conflict of interest. The designation usually requires signatures from both the cardholder and the representative.

The line is straightforward. If the cardholder authorized you and you used the card to buy food for that household, you’re within the rules. If you used the card without the cardholder’s knowledge, bought things for yourself, or exchanged benefits for cash, you’ve crossed into conduct that carries federal penalties.

Federal Criminal Penalties

Federal law sets three penalty tiers based on the value of the benefits involved. They apply to anyone who knowingly uses, transfers, or possesses SNAP benefits they aren’t entitled to.

  • Less than $100: misdemeanor. A first conviction carries up to $1,000 in fines and up to one year in prison. Later convictions carry the same maximums, but the prison time becomes mandatory.
  • $100 to $4,999: felony. A first conviction brings up to $10,000 in fines and up to five years in prison. Second and later convictions carry a mandatory minimum of six months, with a five-year maximum.
  • $5,000 or more: felony punishable by up to $250,000 in fines and up to 20 years in prison.

A court can also suspend a convicted person from SNAP for up to 18 additional months beyond any disqualification imposed under program rules.

Prosecutors rarely file federal charges over a single small transaction. But investigators total the value of benefits misused over the whole period, not by individual purchase. A few grocery trips on someone else’s card can add up past the $100 felony threshold quickly.

Identity Theft Charges Can Stack On Top

When someone uses another person’s EBT card by impersonating the cardholder or using their personal information, federal identity theft charges can be added. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, using another person’s identification to obtain something of value carries up to five years in prison for a first offense, and up to 15 years when the fraud involves a government-issued identification document or the aggregate value exceeds $1,000 in a single year. A prior conviction under the same statute pushes the maximum to 20 years.

These charges are separate from the SNAP fraud penalties. A single act of using someone else’s card can produce convictions under both statutes with consecutive sentences. Identity theft counts are more likely when the defendant obtained the card through theft or deception, or used stolen personal information to reach the benefits.

Losing SNAP Eligibility

Criminal penalties are only part of the picture. Anyone found to have committed an intentional program violation — through an administrative hearing, a court conviction, or a signed waiver — is separately disqualified from SNAP.

The standard schedule is:

  • First violation: 12 months of ineligibility.
  • Second violation: 24 months of ineligibility.
  • Third violation: permanent ban.

Some offenses skip straight to harsher penalties. Trading benefits for controlled substances triggers a 24-month ban on the first occasion and a permanent ban on the second. Using benefits in a transaction involving firearms or explosives brings an immediate permanent ban. Trafficking benefits worth $500 or more in the aggregate is a permanent ban on the first offense. Using a false identity to collect benefits in multiple locations at once brings a 10-year disqualification.

The disqualification applies only to the individual who committed the violation, not the whole household. But the household still has to repay any overpaid benefits, and losing one member’s allotment can significantly reduce the household’s total assistance.

The Cardholder Can Also Be In Trouble

The person whose card was used doesn’t automatically get a pass. If you voluntarily handed your EBT card to someone who isn’t an authorized representative and let them shop for themselves, you’ve taken part in an intentional program violation. That means the same disqualification schedule applies to you — 12 months for a first offense, escalating to a permanent ban.

Investigators look at patterns even when the cardholder denies knowing. Repeated transactions at stores the cardholder has never visited, purchases in another city, or a sudden spike in spending all raise flags. If the evidence points to the cardholder knowingly allowing the misuse, both people face consequences.

Genuine theft is treated differently. If your card was stolen, skimmed, or used without your knowledge, report it to your local SNAP office immediately rather than risk being implicated.

Paying the Money Back

Beyond fines and jail time, anyone who received benefits they weren’t entitled to has to repay them. State agencies are required to establish claims against households for overpaid or trafficked benefits, and they have several ways to collect.

The most common method is an offset against current SNAP benefits: the state reduces the monthly allotment to recover the debt. If you’re no longer receiving benefits, the state can pursue wage garnishment and intercept state payments.

At the federal level, the Treasury Offset Program collects delinquent SNAP debt by intercepting federal payments like tax refunds. States send outstanding SNAP debts to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, which forwards them to Treasury for collection. In fiscal year 2024, the program recovered $197.9 million in delinquent SNAP debt nationwide. Leaving the program does not clear the debt; it follows you through the federal tax system until it’s paid.

How These Cases Get Caught

SNAP fraud investigations usually start with data, not tips. State agencies and the USDA run automated analytics that flag unusual EBT transaction patterns: purchases at odd hours, transactions far from the cardholder’s home, sudden changes in spending, or repeated buys at the same retailer that suggest trafficking. When an account is flagged, investigators follow up with interviews, surveillance, and document review.

Not every case goes to criminal court. Federal regulations let state agencies handle suspected fraud through an administrative disqualification hearing instead of referring it for prosecution. That route is expected when the facts don’t warrant criminal charges, such as a first-time offense involving a small dollar amount.

The standard of proof in an administrative hearing is clear and convincing evidence that the person committed and intended to commit the violation. That’s a lower bar than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in criminal court, so someone can be found not guilty of criminal fraud and still lose benefits administratively. An administrative disqualification also doesn’t block later criminal charges over the same conduct if new evidence turns up.