Sacramento grand jury finds 97% of financial elder abuse cases not prosecuted
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Nearly 4,000 confirmed abuse cases led to just 99 prosecutions over six years.
- Lack of trained staff and focus hinder law enforcement’s financial abuse response.
- Grand jury urges new roles, training and outreach to address systemic gaps.
A Sacramento County grand jury found that authorities are not doing enough to investigate and prosecute financial elder abuse of victims “being deprived of justice,” according to a report released this week.
From 2019 through 2024, the Sacramento County Adult Protective Services agency confirmed 3,987 cases of financial elder abuse that were then reported to law enforcement agencies in the county, according to the grand jury report released Tuesday.
But the grand jury learned that those law enforcement agencies only referred 123 cases to the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office for potential prosecution, and the DA’s Office filed criminal charges in only 99 cases. That means that over 97% of confirmed financial elder abuse of victims 65 and older were not prosecuted.
The District Attorney’s Office and law enforcement agencies in the county do not have dedicated staff specifically trained to investigate and prosecute financial elder abuse, Elizabeth TenPas, grand jury foreperson for 2024-2025, said in a news release.
“Law enforcement agencies and the DA rightly devote significant attention to cases of physical abuse and neglect, but victims of financial abuse do not receive the same level of focus or support,” according to the grand jury report. “The lack of attention or prioritization of elder financial crimes has been attributed to a number of factors, foremost among them is the pervasive attitude that financial crime is less devastating to elderly victims compared to violent crimes.”
The DA’s Office on Wednesday declined to comment for this story. On Thursday, DA’s Office sent a written statement that said prosecutors filed criminal charges in 99 of 123 cases submitted by law enforcement for review over a six-year period, “reflecting a high filing rate of approximately 80%.”
“The Sacramento DA’s Office takes financial crimes against elders very seriously and remains committed to seeking justice for vulnerable members of our community,” according to the statement. “When proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists, we fully prosecute these cases under the law and will continue to do so.”
The DA’s Office has an Elder Abuse Unit with two attorneys. But its website makes its clear that it does not prosecute elder financial abuse, “except in some rare occasions.” The Elder Abuse Unit handles felony cases of elder and dependent adult physical and mental abuse, neglect and cases in which an elder or dependent adult is a victim of a crime.
The grand jury learned that the DA’s Financial Crimes and Real Estate Fraud units have prosecuted cases involving elderly victims where large sums of money over $100,000 or multiple victims are involved.
Financial elder abuse victims
Financial elder abuse victims suffer affects to their psychological, emotional and physical well-being, such as feelings of betrayal, fear, guilt, depression and anxiety, according to the grand jury report. It also results in increased rates of hospitalization or emergency room visits, increased mortality and low survival rate over a five-year period.
The grand jury included in its report the story of two financial elder abuse victims.
One was an 80-year-old woman living alone and isolated from family and friends who developed a psychological bond with a tradesperson who moved her into his home. The tradesperson was caught by the woman’s bank trying to cash checks on her account. Law enforcement moved the woman out of the abuser’s home and took her to a hospital emergency room, where she said she felt unsafe and fearful of retaliation. She suffered multiple hospitalizations and was relocated to a long-term care facility in a different county.
The other victim was an 83-year-old man who owned several acres of land and a mobile home. He developed dementia and needed a caretaker. The caretaker stole the man’s social security checks and emptied his bank account with ATM withdrawals. The man lost his property and all his resources and had to move into a long-term care facility, where he continued to ask about his property and return to his home.
“Older people are often stereotyped with negative traits, such as forgetfulness, sickliness or ineptitude. These misperceptions tend to devalue the individual, making it easier to minimize their concerns,” according to the grand jury report. “Elderly victims are less likely to be believed, and are less likely to be considered reliable witnesses in financial abuse cases. They deserve better.”
The grand jury recommended:
▪ increased funding to create financial elder abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate jobs in the DA’s office.
▪ each law enforcement agency to have at least one detective with specialized training to investigate financial elder abuse, as well as training for uniformed officers to recognize the signs of such abuse.
▪ reactivation of the Financial Abuse Specialist Team to facilitate collaboration between the DA’s Office, other law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, legal services organizations, victim advocacy organizations and financial institutions to combat financial elder abuse.
▪ improved record-keeping and data collection practices by Adult Protective Services and law enforcement agencies to track financial elder abuse cases.
▪ greater community outreach on the issue by Adult Protective Services, the DA’s Office and law enforcement agencies.
The primary function of the grand jury, which is a 19-member panel selected annually, is to serve as an independent “watchdog” investigative body to review and investigate the performance of county, city and local governing entities including special districts.
The grand jury has required a formal response to its findings in the financial elder abuse report within 60 days from the DA’s Office, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and the county’s Department of Child, Family and Adult Services. The grand jury also is requiring a response within 90 days from the county’s Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento, Elk Grove, Folsom and Citrus Heights city councils.
The grand jury invited responses to its report from the chiefs of police in Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights and Folsom.
This story was originally published June 5, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
