Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult in Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 609.2335)

Who is a “vulnerable adult”?

This is the threshold question, and it is more specific than just “elderly.” A vulnerable adult is generally a person who, because of age, physical or mental impairment, or because they receive certain services (such as in a facility or licensed care setting), cannot adequately provide for their own care or protect themselves. Not every older person is legally a “vulnerable adult” — the status depends on the statutory definition, and whether it applies can itself be contested.

What the offense covers

The statute reaches a range of conduct involving a vulnerable adult’s money or property, generally including:

• Using or managing the person’s funds, property, or resources in a way that is not for the person’s benefit, in breach of a fiduciary duty or position of trust;
• Obtaining the person’s money or property through undue influence, deception, harassment, or coercion;
• Acquiring or using the property without legal authority or the person’s effective consent.

Because these cases turn on authority, consent, and the person’s capacity, they are heavily fact-dependent — especially when the accused is a family member, caregiver, power-of-attorney agent, or someone the vulnerable adult genuinely wanted to help them.

How the penalties scale

Like theft, the offense is graded by the value of the money or property involved. Lower-value conduct is charged at the misdemeanor or gross-misdemeanor level (for example, conduct involving smaller amounts may carry up to 364 days and a $3,000 fine), while higher values escalate to felony levels with substantially greater maximum sentences and fines. The value thresholds generally track the theft grading.

Defenses

• Authorization and consent. The central battleground — whether you had legal authority (such as a valid power of attorney, joint account, or the person’s informed consent) and acted within it. Lawful, authorized use of the person’s funds is not exploitation.
• The person’s capacity and wishes. Whether the vulnerable adult had capacity and genuinely directed or approved the transactions — gifts and financial help freely given are different from exploitation.
• “Vulnerable adult” status. Whether the alleged victim actually meets the statutory definition.
• No breach of trust or undue influence. Whether the conduct involved the deception, undue influence, or breach of duty the statute requires.
• Valuation. Disputing the amount, which can lower the offense level.
• Intent and accounting. Whether apparent discrepancies reflect exploitation or simply poor record-keeping in an informal family caregiving arrangement.

Why these cases are difficult — for everyone

Financial-exploitation cases are among the most fact-sensitive in criminal law. They frequently arise from family caregiving situations where money was shared informally, intentions were unclear, and other relatives later raised concerns. The same set of bank records can look like exploitation or like an authorized, loving arrangement depending on context, capacity, and consent. That makes a careful, documented defense — and early attention to the financial records and the question of authority — especially important.