What Evidence Does HRA's Bureau of Fraud Investigation Already Have Before Your NYC Food Stamp Fraud Interview?

By the time a letter from the Human Resources Administration's Bureau of Fraud Investigation (BFI) reaches your mailbox, the investigator already has a file. In most New York City cases the file was built by a computer, not a person. An automated match flagged something in your case, a BFI investigator pulled your application history and EBT records, and the interview letter went out. This page explains what is usually in that file, how New York's rules let the agency use it, and how each category of evidence can be challenged at an administrative disqualification hearing or in a criminal welfare fraud case.

This page is about the evidence itself. For the hearing procedure, see our page on the administrative disqualification hearing in New York. For penalties and strategy when this is your first accusation, see first-offense food stamp fraud in New York. If the allegation is that you hid a spouse or partner in the household, see allegations of lying about separation for food stamps and Medicaid. If you are a store owner accused by the USDA rather than a recipient accused by HRA, see defending USDA SNAP retailer violations.

If you have received a BFI letter and want to speak with a lawyer before you respond, call 212-233-1233.

Who investigates food stamp fraud in New York City

SNAP (still called food stamps by most people) is a federal program run under 7 CFR Part 273. In New York, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) supervises the program statewide, and its regulations appear in 18 NYCRR Part 387 (eligibility and overpayments) and Part 359 (intentional program violations and disqualification hearings). In the five boroughs, HRA administers SNAP. Investigations of recipients are handled by BFI, which sits inside HRA's Investigation, Revenue and Enforcement Administration (IREA). Outside the city, the county Department of Social Services has its own fraud unit, but the state rules are the same.

Three different outcomes can grow out of one BFI file:

• A repayment claim: HRA calculates an overpayment and seeks to recover it, with or without a finding of fault (18 NYCRR 387.19; 7 CFR 273.18).
• An administrative disqualification hearing (ADH): OTDA's Office of Administrative Hearings decides whether you committed an intentional program violation (IPV), which carries a disqualification from SNAP of 12 months, 24 months, or permanently (7 CFR 273.16(b); 18 NYCRR Part 359).
• A criminal referral: BFI sends the file to the District Attorney of your borough for prosecution under Penal Law Article 158 (welfare fraud) and related statutes.

The same documents drive all three. That is why the evidence matters more than the label on the letter.

How a case starts: the automated data matches

Few BFI cases begin with a tip. Most begin with a computer match run by OTDA or HRA against outside databases. The common matches in New York are:

• NYS Department of Labor quarterly wage reports: Every employer in New York reports each employee's gross wages to the Department of Labor every quarter. OTDA compares those reports to the income on your case. A quarter showing wages that do not appear in your case record is the single most common trigger for a BFI letter.
• New hire reporting: Employers must report new hires to the state within 20 days. This match catches a job that started after your last recertification.
• IRS and NYS Department of Taxation and Finance data: The agency can see summary tax information, including 1099 income from self-employment or gig work, and who filed a return using your address.
• Social Security Administration data: Benefit amounts, work history and death records are matched through SSA data exchanges.
• DMV records: License and registration records are used to tie a person to an address, which matters in household composition cases.
• PARIS (Public Assistance Reporting Information System): A federal interstate match that flags people receiving benefits in two states, or receiving federal or military pay, at the same time.
• EBT out-of-state usage: Benefits used mainly or entirely outside New York for an extended period raise a question about residency.
• Lottery and gambling winnings: Federal rules require states to check for substantial winnings, which end eligibility until the household reapplies (7 CFR 273.11(r)).
• Retailer trafficking investigations: When USDA's Food and Nutrition Service builds a case against a store for exchanging benefits for cash, the EBT numbers of the customers involved are passed along, and those recipients may be charged with trafficking.

A match is a lead, not proof. Wage reports can be posted to the wrong Social Security number, carry a former employee's name for months after the job ended, or show gross pay for a quarter when the actual work spanned only a few weeks. The first job for a defense lawyer is to pull the underlying data and check it against what you were actually paid and when.

What the BFI investigator's file usually contains

When you sit down for a BFI interview, the investigator typically has in front of them:

• Every SNAP and public assistance application and recertification you signed, with the certification page attesting that the information is true and that you understand the penalties for false statements.
• The case notes from HRA's computer system, including which documents you submitted and what you reported at each interview.
• The match printout that started the case (wage, tax, DMV, PARIS, or EBT).
• Your EBT transaction history, often going back years.
• Address records: DMV, voter registration, lease or NYCHA records, utility accounts, and sometimes a field visit report.
• Any prior investigation or repayment agreement in your name.

What the file usually does not contain at the interview stage: your bank statements, your payment-app history, or any statement from you. The interview exists to fill those gaps. Everything you say and hand over at that meeting becomes part of the file.

Each category of evidence, and how it is challenged

1. Your own applications and recertifications

These are the foundation of every IPV case. The agency's theory is simple: on a specific date you signed a form stating a specific household, address and income, and the match shows the truth was different. The signed certification is used to prove you knew the duty to report.

Defense points. The agency must prove the statement was false when made and that you made it intentionally (7 CFR 273.16(c); 18 NYCRR Part 359). Most New York SNAP households are on simplified reporting, which means that between recertifications you are generally required to report a change only when gross monthly income rises above 130 percent of the federal poverty level for your household size (7 CFR 273.12(a)(5)). Income that started mid-period and stayed under that line may not have been reportable at all. The lawyer also looks at who filled out the form, whether an HRA worker entered information you did not give, whether a translation was involved, and whether a change you did report was never entered into the system.

2. Wage, tax and employer records

After the match, BFI often sends an employer verification request asking for pay dates, hours and gross earnings. The investigator will then compare the employer's answer to each certification period and compute an overpayment by budgeting the unreported income month by month.

Defense points. The budget is only as good as the inputs. Quarterly wage data does not show which weeks you worked, and HRA sometimes spreads a quarter's pay evenly across three months when all of it was earned in one. Earned income is budgeted after the 20 percent earned income deduction and the standard deduction, and shelter and dependent care deductions still apply (7 CFR 273.9(d)). A corrected budget can turn an alleged overpayment into a much smaller one, or into no overpayment in some months. Certain income is excluded entirely, including earnings of a child under 18 who is in school at least half time, reimbursements, loans, and irregular income under the regulatory threshold (7 CFR 273.9(c)).

3. Bank statements and payment apps (Zelle, Venmo, Cash App, PayPal)

For most New York SNAP households there is no resource test because of categorical eligibility, so the balance in your account is rarely the issue. What BFI wants from bank records is a pattern of deposits that looks like wages or business income. Payment-app histories are used the same way.

Defense points. A deposit is not income until the agency shows what it was. Transfers from a relative to cover rent, repayment of a loan, a roommate's share of a utility bill, or money you held for someone else are not countable income, and some gifts fall within the exclusion for infrequent or irregular income. Records can be contextualized with the sender's statement, a lease, or the loan paperwork. At the interview stage you are not required to volunteer these records; if the agency wants them it must ask, and a lawyer can review what is being requested and why before anything is produced.

4. Household composition evidence: DMV, leases, utilities, tax returns and field visits

Household cases are the hardest fought. The typical allegation is that a spouse, partner, or adult child lived in the home and had income that was never reported. The evidence is circumstantial: a driver's license at your address, a car registered there, a joint tax return, a name on the lease, a package delivered to the door during a field visit.

Defense points. Under 7 CFR 273.1, a SNAP household is made up of people who customarily purchase food and prepare meals together. Spouses who live together and children under 22 living with a parent must be in the same household, but a roommate, an adult sibling, or a former partner who keeps a separate food budget need not be. An address on a license proves where someone receives mail, not where they sleep or eat. Many New Yorkers keep a parent's or former address on file with DMV for years. A separated spouse who stays on a lease for housing-court reasons or stays on a joint return for tax reasons is a common fact pattern, and it is addressed in detail on our page about separation allegations in food stamp and Medicaid cases. Evidence of the other person's actual residence, such as their own lease, their own utility accounts, or an order of protection, directly rebuts the inference.

5. EBT transaction records

Every EBT purchase is logged with the date, time, store, and amount, and the state can retrieve that history (7 CFR 274.8). BFI uses it two ways. In residency cases, a long run of out-of-state purchases is offered to show you moved. In trafficking cases, the pattern itself is the evidence: repeated even-dollar transactions, several purchases at one small store within minutes, or a card balance emptied in a single swipe at a bodega.

Defense points. EBT cards work in every state, and nothing in the rules prohibits using benefits while traveling or caring for a relative elsewhere. Residence is about where you live, not where you shop. In trafficking cases, the transaction pattern shows what the register recorded, not what left the store. The register at a small store often lacks item-level data, so an even-dollar total can reflect a cashier rounding or a store's own practices rather than a cash exchange. Where the recipient case rides on a USDA retailer case, the retailer's records and the government's basis for charging the store can be examined. Trafficking carries the heaviest administrative penalty, including permanent disqualification where the amount is $500 or more (7 CFR 273.16(b)(3)), so these cases should not be handled without counsel.

6. Social media and online listings

Investigators do look at public profiles. A post advertising hair-braiding or car repair services, a LinkedIn profile listing a current job, or photographs showing a person living in the home all turn up in BFI files.

Defense points. Hearsay is admissible at an administrative hearing in New York (State Administrative Procedure Act section 306), and a hearing officer may rely on it if it is reliable. The question is weight. A photo of a vacation does not establish income; an old profile does not establish current employment; a caption does not establish who paid for what. The agency still has to connect the post to a specific false statement in a specific certification period and prove intent by clear and convincing evidence.

7. Field visits and surveillance

BFI investigators conduct unannounced home visits and sometimes observe a residence from the street. The visit report records who answered the door, whose belongings were visible, and what neighbors or a building superintendent said. HRA does not obtain wiretaps or cell-site data for SNAP cases; that kind of evidence appears, if at all, only after a criminal referral and only with a warrant or court order.

Defense points. You are not required to let an investigator into your home, and a refusal cannot by itself be treated as proof of fraud. A single morning observation of someone leaving the building proves little. Statements attributed to neighbors or doormen are hearsay from people who are rarely produced at the hearing, and the hearing officer can be asked to discount them. Stale observations, such as a visit from two years before the certification period at issue, are of limited relevance.

8. Your statements at the BFI interview

This is the evidence the investigator most wants and least often has before you walk in. Interviews are conducted by trained investigators, and the questions are structured to produce admissions: that you knew the other person lived there, that you knew about the job, that you understood the reporting rule. At the end of the interview you may be asked to sign a written statement, a repayment agreement, or a waiver of your right to a hearing.

Defense points. The interview is not a court appearance, and no judge has ordered you to attend. You may attend with a lawyer, reschedule, or decline and let the agency proceed on its paper file. A signed statement that admits intent is close to the whole case at an ADH. A waiver of the hearing under 7 CFR 273.16(f) results in the disqualification being imposed without any hearing at all. A repayment agreement signed at the interview can be used to show the overpayment amount and, depending on its wording, your acknowledgment of fault. None of these documents should be signed on the spot. Lying to the investigator is never the answer: a false statement to the agency is itself a misdemeanor under Social Services Law section 145 and can become a separate count in a criminal case.

9. Statements from third parties

Former partners, landlords, employers, and anonymous callers to the HRA fraud hotline all appear in BFI files. Custody and divorce disputes are a frequent source of reports.

Defense points. Motive to lie is a legitimate subject at the hearing, and a hostile ex-partner's statement deserves close scrutiny. The agency rarely produces the caller. Where a third-party statement is the main evidence of household composition, the defense can present the competing evidence described above and ask the hearing officer to weigh the source.

What the agency has to prove, and with what evidence

At an ADH, HRA must prove by clear and convincing evidence that you intentionally made a false or misleading statement, or misrepresented, concealed or withheld facts, or committed an act that violates SNAP rules concerning the use, transfer, acquisition, receipt, possession or trafficking of benefits (7 CFR 273.16(c) and (e)(6); 18 NYCRR Part 359). Clear and convincing is a higher standard than the preponderance standard used in ordinary fair hearings. Intent is the element most cases turn on. An overpayment caused by confusion about reporting rules, by a worker's data-entry error, or by a change you reported that was never processed is not an IPV.

New York regulations and the federal rules sort overpayments into three categories, and the category depends on the evidence:

• Agency error: HRA had the correct information and budgeted it wrong. You repay, but there is no disqualification, and recovery is limited to 10 percent of your monthly allotment or $10, whichever is greater.
• Inadvertent household error: You gave incomplete or incorrect information without intent. You repay at the same 10 percent rate, with no disqualification.
• Intentional program violation: Proven at an ADH, admitted by waiver, or established by a court. You repay at 20 percent of the allotment or $20, whichever is greater, and you are disqualified for 12 months (first IPV), 24 months (second), or permanently (third), with longer periods for trafficking and for exchanging benefits for drugs, firearms or explosives (7 CFR 273.16(b); 7 CFR 273.18(g)).

Weak or ambiguous evidence of intent is the path from the third category into the first two. Even where an overpayment exists, moving the case from IPV to inadvertent error halves the recoupment rate and avoids the disqualification. Overpayment claims can reach back as far as six years before the overissuance was discovered (7 CFR 273.18(c)), so the month-by-month budget review described above often matters more than the question of fault.

An ADH decision can be reviewed in Supreme Court through an Article 78 proceeding, which must be started within four months of the decision (CPLR 217).

When the evidence goes to the District Attorney

BFI refers cases to the borough District Attorney when the overpayment is large, when the evidence of intent is strong (usually a signed admission or a clear document trail), or when trafficking is involved. The charges that follow come from Penal Law Article 158:

• Welfare fraud in the fifth degree (Penal Law 158.05): any amount; class A misdemeanor.
• Fourth degree (158.10): more than $1,000; class E felony.
• Third degree (158.15): more than $3,000; class D felony.
• Second degree (158.20): more than $50,000; class C felony.
• First degree (158.25): more than $1,000,000; class B felony.

Prosecutors in New York City also commonly charge offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law 175.35, a class E felony) for each signed application or recertification, and criminal use or possession of a public benefit card (Penal Law 158.30 through 158.50) in trafficking cases. Social Services Law section 147 separately criminalizes misuse of food stamp benefits.

In a criminal case the evidence rules change in your favor. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, hearsay is generally inadmissible, business records must be properly certified, and the defense can demand discovery under CPL Article 245. The felony statute of limitations is generally five years and the misdemeanor limit two years (CPL 30.10). A criminal case can be resolved in a way that also disposes of the administrative penalty through a disqualification consent agreement (7 CFR 273.16(h)), which is one reason to coordinate both tracks with one lawyer.

Three hypothetical scenarios

The following scenarios are hypothetical. They are not descriptions of actual client matters or results, and they are offered only to show how the evidence analysis works.

Scenario A: the wage match that counted a job twice

A Bronx recipient receives a BFI letter based on Department of Labor data showing wages from a home-care agency during three quarters when her case showed no earned income. On review, the case record shows she reported the job at recertification and submitted pay stubs, but the worker entered the income into the public assistance budget and not the SNAP budget. The wage data is accurate; the failure is the agency's. The evidence supports an agency-error classification, which would mean repayment of any actual overpayment at the lower rate with no IPV finding.

Scenario B: the ex-husband on the lease

A Queens recipient is accused of concealing her husband in the household. BFI's file holds a DMV record and a joint 2021 tax return at her address and a neighbor's remark during a field visit. The defense assembles the husband's own lease in New Jersey starting in 2020, his utility bills there, text messages about child pickups, and an explanation that the joint return was prepared by a tax preparer the couple had used before the separation. The question at the hearing is whether the agency's circumstantial evidence is clear and convincing proof that he lived there and that she intentionally concealed it. Evidence of this kind can lead a hearing officer to find no IPV even if some overpayment is assessed for a shorter period.

Scenario C: the trafficking pattern at a bodega

A Brooklyn recipient's EBT number appears in a USDA case against a corner store, based on fourteen even-dollar transactions over eight months. BFI alleges trafficking of more than $500, which would carry permanent disqualification. The defense obtains the store's own records showing the register did not record item detail, and shows that the household bought bulk items at that store on a regular schedule. Without item-level data or a store employee's testimony, whether the pattern meets the clear and convincing standard is a genuine question, and the amount actually trafficked, if any, also matters because the $500 threshold determines the length of the penalty.

Should you go to the BFI interview?

There is no single answer, but there is a single rule: do not go in without having reviewed your own case record first. A lawyer can obtain your HRA file and the match data, compute the overpayment HRA is likely to claim, and tell you whether the evidence of intent is thin or strong before you say anything. In some cases the right move is to attend with counsel and present the documents that resolve the match. In others, the right move is to decline the interview and defend at the hearing, where the agency carries the burden. In a case headed for criminal referral, anything said at the interview is admissible against you, and silence is usually the safer course.

Frequently asked questions

Can HRA see my bank account?

Not automatically. The data matches cover wages, taxes, Social Security, DMV and benefits in other states, not bank balances. HRA can ask you to produce statements, and your application includes consent to verify eligibility information. In a criminal investigation the District Attorney can subpoena bank records. For most New York SNAP households there is no resource test, so the balance itself usually is not the issue; deposits that look like unreported income are.

Does Venmo or Zelle money count as income?

It depends on what the transfer was. Payment for work or services is earned income. A loan, a reimbursement, or a roommate's share of a bill is not. Gifts are generally unearned income unless they fall under the exclusion for infrequent or irregular income. The label on the transfer matters less than what it actually was, and the sender's explanation can be documented.

Can they use my Instagram or Facebook?

Yes. Public posts are admissible at an administrative hearing. Their weight is the issue: a photo does not prove income, a profile does not prove current employment, and the agency still has to tie the post to a false statement in a specific period and prove intent by clear and convincing evidence.

How far back can HRA go?

Overpayment claims can be established for overissuances going back as far as six years before discovery under 7 CFR 273.18(c). Criminal charges are limited by the statute of limitations, generally five years for felonies and two years for misdemeanors under CPL 30.10, though each signed recertification can be treated as a separate act.

Is the BFI interview mandatory?

No court order requires you to attend. If you do not go, the agency proceeds on its existing file and may still issue a repayment claim, schedule a hearing, or refer the case. Attending without preparation, however, is how most IPV cases get their best evidence. Speak with a lawyer first.

What if I already signed a repayment agreement at the interview?

A repayment agreement is not necessarily an admission of an IPV, and its wording matters. Bring the document to a lawyer. If a waiver of the hearing was signed at the same time, time limits apply and the situation should be reviewed immediately.

Will I be disqualified from Medicaid or cash assistance too?

A SNAP IPV disqualification applies to SNAP. Public assistance has its own IPV rules under 18 NYCRR Part 359, and the same facts are often alleged under both programs. Medicaid does not have an IPV disqualification, but Medicaid overpayments can be pursued and the same conduct can be charged criminally.

Sources

• 7 CFR 273.16, Disqualification for intentional program violation: eCFR
• 7 CFR 273.18, Claims against households: eCFR
• 18 NYCRR Part 359 and Part 387, published by OTDA: otda.ny.gov/legal
• New York Penal Law Article 158 (Welfare Fraud); Penal Law 175.35; Social Services Law 145 and 147; CPLR 217; CPL 30.10 and Article 245; State Administrative Procedure Act 306.
• NYC Human Resources Administration, Investigation, Revenue and Enforcement Administration: nyc.gov/hra

About the author

Albert Goodwin is an attorney admitted in New York. His practice includes the defense of HRA Bureau of Fraud Investigation inquiries, administrative disqualification hearings before OTDA, and welfare fraud charges in New York City. Last reviewed: 2025. This page is general legal information for New York and is not legal advice for your situation.

Talk to a New York food stamp fraud lawyer before the interview

If you have received a BFI letter, a notice of an administrative disqualification hearing, or a call from a District Attorney's office about SNAP benefits, we can review the agency's file with you and tell you what the evidence does and does not show. Call the Law Offices of Albert Goodwin at 212-233-1233.