Exploitation of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual is a third-degree felony under Texas Penal Code § 32.53 — two to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, with no minimum dollar amount. Below: the controlling statute, the elements the State must prove, defense strategies that work, and how these cases actually move through Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County courts.
Free, Confidential Case Review
Tell us what happened. A defense attorney reviews every submission — usually within the hour during business hours.
Published 2026-06-11 · Reviewed by Reggie London and Njeri London, Co-Founding Partners · Last reviewed: 2026-06-11
Peer Recognition
Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors
Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.
Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Controlling statute:Tex. Penal Code § 32.53 Classification: Felony of the third degree — every case, with no dollar-value ladder Punishment range: 2–10 years in prison + fine up to $10,000 (§ 12.34); second-degree range (2–20 years) with one prior felony conviction under § 12.42(a)
What Is Exploitation of the Elderly Under Texas Law?
Texas Penal Code § 32.53(b) makes it an offense to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause the exploitation of a child, an elderly individual, or a disabled individual. The statute then defines its own key term: under § 32.53(a)(2), “exploitation” means the illegal or improper use of the protected person — or of the protected person’s resources — for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain. Two features of that definition do most of the work in real cases. The use can be of the person, not just their money, so directing an elderly relative’s benefits stream or labor falls inside the text. And “improper” is not defined at all, which gives prosecutors a charging tool that reaches conduct no other fraud statute cleanly covers.
The Legislature added § 32.53 in 2011 — S.B. 688, 82nd Legislature, effective September 1, 2011 — and its origins show in subsection (e), which gives the Texas Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction, with the local district attorney’s consent, over § 32.53 cases involving the Medicaid program. The statute was built with provider fraud and caretaker abuse in mind, but its day-to-day use in North Texas is broader: adult children holding a parent’s power of attorney, paid caregivers, joint-account holders, and neighbors who insert themselves into an older person’s finances.
The courts have begun marking the statute’s edges. Because “improper” has no statutory definition, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals construed it according to its plain dictionary meaning in Cosper v. State, 685 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2024, pet. ref’d). And in 2025 the Eastland Court of Appeals rejected a facial vagueness attack on that same language: Ex parte Sharon Marie Taff, No. 11-24-00025-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 27, 2025), holds that § 32.53 gives persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what it prohibits, with the scienter requirement — the State must prove an intentional, knowing, or reckless mental state — supplying much of the constitutional ballast. The vagueness fight has been litigated and, for now, lost; the live battles are evidentiary.
Who Counts as a Protected Person Under § 32.53?
Section 32.53(a)(1) borrows its definitions from Penal Code § 22.04(c), the injury-to-a-child statute. A “child” is a person 14 years of age or younger. An “elderly individual” is a person 65 years of age or older — a purely objective line proved with a birth date, regardless of how sharp or independent the person actually is. A “disabled individual” is defined two ways: a person with one or more listed conditions — autism spectrum disorder, a developmental disability, an intellectual disability, severe emotional disturbance, traumatic brain injury, or mental illness as those terms are defined in other codes — or a person who otherwise, by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury, is substantially unable to protect themselves from harm or to provide their own food, shelter, or medical care.
The breadth of the disabled-individual definition matters in practice. The State does not need a guardianship order, a dementia diagnosis, or a disability determination from any agency; it can build protected status from medical records and lay testimony about what the person could and could not do for themselves. On the defense side, the same definition is a fact issue a jury must resolve — in cases built on the “substantially unable” prong, the complainant’s actual functioning at the time of the transactions is fair game, and evidence of independence cuts directly against an element of the offense.
What Are the Penalties for Exploitation Under § 32.53?
Every § 32.53 case is a felony of the third degree under subsection (c). The punishment range comes from Penal Code chapter 12: two to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 under § 12.34. Unlike theft, the grade never moves with the dollar amount — Cosper makes the point expressly: the offense has no monetary threshold, and any instance of exploitation will support the conviction.
Posture
Classification
Confinement
Fine cap
Base offense — any amount, § 32.53(c)
Third-degree felony
2–10 years, TDCJ
$10,000
One prior felony conviction, § 12.42(a)
Punished as second-degree felony
2–20 years, TDCJ
$10,000
Two sequential prior felony convictions, § 12.42(d)
Habitual range
25–99 years or life, TDCJ
—
Companion statute: financial abuse of elderly, § 32.55
Class B misdemeanor up to first-degree felony, graded by value
Up to 180 days (under $100) through 5–99 years or life ($150,000+)
$2,000–$10,000 by grade
Last reviewed
2026-06-11
Community supervision and deferred adjudication are available under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 42A for defendants who qualify, and restitution is a near-universal feature of negotiated resolutions in these cases. Subsection (d) adds a rule that matters when the State stacks charges: a person may be prosecuted under § 32.53 and another Penal Code section for the same conduct, the severance right in § 3.04 does not apply to that pairing, and if convictions result under both sections, the sentences must run concurrently. The State gets two shots at a verdict; it does not get consecutive time for the same episode.
Elements the State Must Prove
Cosper breaks the offense into its working parts. To convict, the State must prove each beyond a reasonable doubt: the defendant (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (2) caused the exploitation of (3) a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual (4) by illegally or improperly (5) using the person or the person’s resources (6) for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain.
A culpable mental state — down to recklessness
Intent, knowledge, or recklessness under § 6.03 will do. That floor is lower than most of the fraud chapter, where “intent to defraud or harm” is standard, and it means the State can argue conscious disregard of a substantial risk rather than purposeful deceit. As Ex parte Taff frames it, the scienter inquiry focuses in part on the actor’s deceit or dishonesty in obtaining the protected person’s assets — and if the State cannot prove the mental state, the answer is an acquittal.
Causing exploitation
The defendant must cause the illegal or improper use. Causation is rarely contested where the defendant’s own hand moved the money; it becomes a real issue where third parties, joint signers, or the protected person’s own decisions sit between the defendant and the transaction.
A protected person
Child (14 or younger), elderly individual (65 or older), or disabled individual under the § 22.04(c) definitions. Elderly status is objective and provable with a birth certificate; disabled status is frequently the contested element in cases built on the “substantially unable” prong.
Illegal or improper use
“Illegal” points to conduct that is independently unlawful — a theft, a forgery, an unauthorized transfer. “Improper” is broader and undefined; Cosper gives it its ordinary dictionary meaning, and Ex parte Taff holds the term constitutionally adequate because ordinary people understand the impropriety of obtaining a vulnerable person’s assets through dishonesty, manipulation, or taking advantage. The defense corollary: conduct consistent with an arm’s-length arrangement, documented compensation, or the principal’s informed direction is neither.
Benefit, profit, or gain
The use must be for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain — to the defendant or anyone the defendant chose to benefit. The element does not require the protected person to suffer a net loss, but tracing where value actually went is usually where these cases are won or lost.
How Do Prosecutors Build an Exploitation Case?
Almost no § 32.53 case starts with a patrol stop. The typical genesis is a referral — from Adult Protective Services, from a bank’s fraud unit flagging unusual withdrawals on a senior’s account, from a new guardian or family member who finally gets a look at the statements, or from a probate fight that turns up transfers nobody can explain. A financial-crimes detective then works backward through subpoenaed bank records, account applications, powers of attorney, deeds, and beneficiary changes, building a transaction-by-transaction spreadsheet of money leaving the protected person’s estate.
The second pillar is capacity evidence. Cosper is the template: the State proved an 86-year-old man had been diagnosed with severe dementia months before he handed the defendant $28,000 for a vehicle, that the “gift” contradicted a lifetime of conservative financial habits, and that the defendant knew his condition — she later sought to have him declared incompetent. The court of appeals held a jury could find exploitation on that record even though the man himself called the money a gift. Physician evaluations, pharmacy records, home-health notes, and testimony from people who saw the person daily all feed this element, and the defendant’s mental state is then inferred from the surrounding circumstances.
Expect the State’s file to include the APS investigation, recorded interviews — including the defendant’s own explanation, given before counsel was involved — and increasingly, reports generated by financial institutions trained to flag suspected elder financial abuse. The defense gets all of it through Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14 discovery, and the same spreadsheet that looks damning in summary often looks different at the line-item level, where caregiving expenses, household contributions, and the principal’s own instructions live.
What Defenses Work Against an Exploitation Charge?
L and L Law Group builds § 32.53 defenses around the statute’s own limits and the financial record:
Capacity and consent. A competent adult is allowed to be generous, foolish, or unfair with their own money. If the protected person had capacity at the time of the transfers and directed or ratified them, the use was neither illegal nor improper. Contemporaneous evidence — notes from treating physicians, the person’s own writings, witnesses to the conversations — outweighs after-the-fact recollection.
Authority and scope. Agents under a power of attorney, trustees, and joint-account holders act lawfully when they act within their authority and for the principal’s benefit. A clean ledger — receipts, reimbursement records, a caregiving agreement — turns the State’s “improper use” narrative into documented administration.
No culpable mental state.Ex parte Taff puts it plainly: if the State fails to prove the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Confusion over commingled family finances, transfers made on professional advice, and good-faith management of a shared household all attack scienter directly.
The “improper” line. Ordinary intra-family support is not a felony. Adult children who live with and care for a parent routinely share expenses, accept reimbursement, and receive gifts; the defense frames each charged transaction inside that lawful pattern and forces the State to prove what made it criminal rather than unseemly.
Civil dispute dressed as a crime. A meaningful share of exploitation referrals begin as inheritance fights between siblings or as guardianship leverage. Probate-court filings, prior demands, and the complaining witness’s financial stake are admissible motive evidence the jury is entitled to weigh.
Tracing and benefit. The State must connect the use to a benefit, profit, or gain. Where the money demonstrably went to the protected person’s housing, care, taxes, or debts, the benefit element fails transaction by transaction.
The charging architecture matters too. Because the State often files § 32.53 alongside theft or misapplication of fiduciary property, the defense should test each count against its own elements. Cosper shows why: the court of appeals rendered an acquittal on the misapplication count — the State could not prove the defendant violated any agreement governing the funds, because the transfers were gifts — while affirming the exploitation count on the same facts. Element mismatches between stacked counts are not edge cases in this corner of the Penal Code; they are the norm.
Can an Exploitation Charge Be Dismissed or Expunged?
Dismissal. These cases are records cases, and records cases collapse when the spreadsheet does. Demonstrating capacity, authority, and benefit at the line-item level — before indictment where possible — is the most direct route to a refusal, a reduction, or a dismissal. Restitution-driven resolutions are common where the family’s real goal is repayment rather than a felony record, though no outcome can be promised in any particular case.
Expunction. An arrest that ends in acquittal or in dismissal without a felony conviction or court-ordered community supervision can qualify for expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 55A — the records are destroyed, not merely hidden. Our expunction page covers the mechanics.
Nondisclosure. A deferred adjudication that ends in discharge and dismissal can support a petition to seal under Government Code § 411.0725; for felonies the petition waits until the fifth anniversary of the discharge. A final felony conviction cannot be sealed at all. The five-year gap between those outcomes is one more reason the deferred-versus-conviction decision deserves real analysis — see our deferred adjudication nondisclosure and order of nondisclosure pages.
How DFW Counties Handle Exploitation Cases
Section 32.53 is a felony, so every case runs through a grand jury and, if indicted, a district court:
Collin County — district courts at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building), 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney. Frisco, Plano, McKinney, and Allen cases file here; the county’s retiree growth along the Preston Road corridor has made caretaker-finance referrals a steady presence on these dockets.
Dallas County — felony district courts at the Frank Crowley Courts Building on Riverfront Boulevard. Financial-exploitation files in urban counties typically route through prosecutors who handle financial crimes rather than the general felony intake stream, which means a records-heavy, slower-moving prosecution.
Denton County — district courts at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton, drawing cases from Lewisville, Flower Mound, The Colony, and the Denton-side slice of Frisco.
Tarrant County — felony courts at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth.
Two regional observations hold without promising anything about any particular file. First, these prosecutions are referral-driven, so the quality of the underlying APS or bank investigation varies enormously — some files arrive with forensic accounting, others with little more than a relative’s suspicion. Second, grand juries see the capacity evidence early; a pre-indictment defense presentation documenting authority and benefit can shape the charging decision in a way that is rarely possible in street-crime cases.
What Happens After an Exploitation Arrest or APS Referral?
The quiet investigation. Months of records work usually precede any arrest — subpoenas to banks, interviews with family, an APS file taking shape. If you learn you are under investigation, this window is the most valuable time in the case; see our pre-arrest investigations practice page before agreeing to any interview.
Arrest or warrant. Most defendants are arrested on a warrant rather than in the moment. Booking and bond follow in the county of prosecution.
Magistration. A magistrate gives the article 15.17 warnings and sets bond. Conditions in § 32.53 cases commonly include no contact with the complainant and no management of the complainant’s finances or property.
Grand jury and indictment. A felony requires an indictment. The defense can sometimes present a capacity-and-authority packet to the State before the grand jury hears the case.
Discovery and motions. Article 39.14 produces the bank records, the APS file, the medical records, and the interviews. Motions practice targets statements taken without warnings, overbroad seizures of financial records, and — in the right case — the legal sufficiency of “improper use” as charged.
Resolution. Dismissal, reduction, deferred adjudication, trial, or plea. Felony limitation periods are set by Code of Criminal Procedure article 12.01, and because financial records age well, the State often files these cases years after the transactions at issue.
The APS Investigation Running Alongside the Criminal Case
Most § 32.53 prosecutions have a civil shadow. Adult Protective Services — a division of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services — investigates abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of adults 65 or older and adults with disabilities under Human Resources Code chapter 48. Chapter 48 imposes a reporting duty on anyone with cause to believe exploitation is occurring (§ 48.051), which is why referrals come from bank tellers, home-health aides, and neighbors as often as from family.
Three things to understand about the parallel track. APS investigates on a civil standard and can validate a finding of exploitation without any criminal charge ever being filed — and the reverse is also true. Statements made to an APS investigator are generally not custodial, so no Miranda warnings precede them, and they can land in the criminal file later; politeness is free, but substantive answers should wait for counsel. And the probate side moves on its own clock: a guardianship application or an injunction freezing accounts can reorder the family’s finances long before the criminal case resolves, so the criminal defense has to be coordinated with whatever is happening in the probate court.
Collateral Consequences Beyond the Courtroom
Firearms. A felony conviction triggers the Texas felon-in-possession statute, Penal Code § 46.04, and the federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Work with vulnerable people. A fraud-chapter felony involving an elderly or disabled victim is close to disqualifying in caregiving, nursing, home health, banking, insurance, and securities work, and licensing boards treat it as a character offense regardless of the sentence.
Fiduciary roles. Courts weigh felony convictions when appointing guardians, executors, and trustees, so a conviction can end the defendant’s ability to serve in exactly the roles these cases arise from — including for their own family members.
Immigration. Fraud-type convictions carry serious immigration exposure, and the analysis is intensely fact-specific; non-citizens should have immigration counsel review any proposed plea before it is entered.
Restitution and civil liability. Restitution orders survive the criminal case, and the same conduct routinely spawns civil suits — breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, probate clawbacks — where the criminal record becomes Exhibit A.
How § 32.53 Compares with Neighboring Offenses
Elder-finance conduct sits at the intersection of several statutes, and the charging choice changes everything about the case:
Theft, § 31.03 — the value-ladder workhorse. When the owner is an elderly individual, § 31.03(f)(3)(A) bumps the punishment to the next-higher category. Section 32.53(d) lets the State prosecute theft and exploitation together for the same episode — with sentences running concurrently if both stick.
Misapplication of fiduciary property, § 32.45 — requires a fiduciary relationship and a use contrary to an agreement or law governing the property, graded by value. Cosper shows the gap between the two statutes: gifts defeated the agreement element of § 32.45 while the § 32.53 count survived.
Financial abuse of an elderly individual, § 32.55 — the 2021 companion offense (H.B. 1156), expressly reaching wrongful takings by undue influence and graded by value from Class B misdemeanor to first-degree felony at $150,000 or more. Below $2,500 it charges lower than § 32.53; at six figures it charges far higher.
Hypothetical one — the power-of-attorney daughter. A Frisco woman holds her widowed father’s power of attorney. Over two years she pays herself $1,500 a month from his account, describing it as caregiving compensation, and uses his card for groceries consumed by the whole household. After he enters memory care, her brother reports her to APS, and a Collin County detective builds a spreadsheet of every transfer. Whether this is administration or a felony turns on documentation — a written caregiving arrangement, the father’s capacity and direction when payments began, and where the grocery money actually went. The same ledger can acquit or convict. This is a composite illustration, not a case result or a prediction.
Hypothetical two — the generous neighbor arrangement. A Dallas retiree with early-stage dementia signs over a truck title to the neighbor who drives him to appointments, telling his banker it was a gift. The bank flags it; APS opens a file; the neighbor explains himself to a detective without counsel. The exploitation analysis follows Cosper: his capacity at the moment of transfer, whether the gift fit his established habits, and what the neighbor knew about his condition. The neighbor’s recorded statement — given to “clear things up” — becomes the State’s centerpiece either way. Again, a hypothetical built to show how the elements interlock.
Key Legal Terms
Exploitation (§ 32.53(a)(2))
The illegal or improper use of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual — or of that person’s resources — for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain. “Improper” carries its ordinary dictionary meaning; it is not separately defined.
Protected Person (§ 22.04(c))
A child 14 or younger; an elderly individual 65 or older; or a disabled individual — a person with a listed condition or one substantially unable to protect themselves from harm or provide their own food, shelter, or medical care.
Concurrent-Sentence Rule (§ 32.53(d))
The State may prosecute the same episode under § 32.53 and another Penal Code section — severance under § 3.04 does not apply — but sentences assessed under both must run concurrently.
Adult Protective Services (Hum. Res. Code ch. 48)
The DFPS division that investigates abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of adults 65+ or with disabilities on a civil standard, with a universal reporting duty and a referral pipeline into criminal prosecution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is exploitation of the elderly a felony in Texas?
Yes. Exploitation of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual under Penal Code § 32.53 is a third-degree felony — two to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The grade never drops to a misdemeanor, and it does not scale with the amount of money involved.
Who counts as “elderly,” “child,” or “disabled” under § 32.53?
The statute borrows its definitions from Penal Code § 22.04(c): a child is a person 14 or younger, an elderly individual is a person 65 or older, and a disabled individual is a person with a listed condition — autism spectrum disorder, a developmental or intellectual disability, severe emotional disturbance, traumatic brain injury, or mental illness — or anyone substantially unable to protect themselves from harm or to provide their own food, shelter, or medical care.
Is there a minimum dollar amount for an exploitation charge?
No. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals confirmed in Cosper v. State that § 32.53 has no monetary threshold — any instance of exploitation supports the third-degree felony. A $300 misuse and a $300,000 misuse carry the same punishment range, which is unusual in the fraud chapter.
Can I be charged if I had power of attorney?
Yes. A power of attorney is authority to act for the principal's benefit — it is not a license to use the principal's money for your own. Prosecutors build many § 32.53 cases around agents and informal caregivers, and the dispute usually narrows to whether specific transactions served the elderly person or the person holding the pen.
What if the money was a gift?
A genuine gift from a person with capacity is not exploitation, and donative intent is a real defense. The fight is over capacity and influence at the moment of the transfer: in Cosper v. State, the court of appeals held the evidence sufficient where an 86-year-old man with diagnosed severe dementia made a $28,000 “gift” that contradicted his lifelong financial habits.
Can the State charge both theft and exploitation for the same conduct?
Yes. Section 32.53(d) expressly allows prosecution under § 32.53 and another Penal Code section — commonly theft under § 31.03 — for the same episode, and the severance right in § 3.04 does not apply. The trade-off the Legislature built in: if convictions result under both sections, the sentences must run concurrently.
Does an APS investigation mean criminal charges are coming?
Not necessarily. Adult Protective Services investigates under Human Resources Code chapter 48 on a civil standard, and many APS files close with services or no finding at all. But APS can refer cases to law enforcement, and statements made to an APS investigator are generally not custodial, so they can surface later in a criminal file. Treat an APS interview as seriously as a police interview.
What is the difference between § 32.53 and § 32.55 financial abuse?
Section 32.53 is a flat third-degree felony with no dollar threshold. Financial abuse of an elderly individual under § 32.55 — added in 2021 — grades by value, from a Class B misdemeanor under $100 to a first-degree felony at $150,000 or more, and expressly reaches wrongful takings by undue influence. Which statute the State picks changes the exposure dramatically in both directions.
Can an exploitation charge be expunged or sealed?
An arrest that ends in acquittal or dismissal can qualify for expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 55A. A felony deferred adjudication that ends in discharge and dismissal can support a petition for nondisclosure under Government Code § 411.0725 after a five-year wait. A final felony conviction can be neither expunged nor sealed, which is why the record endgame belongs in the plea calculus from day one.
Reggie London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on federal criminal defense, complex felony defense, and TEA/SBEC matters. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Njeri London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on DWI defense, family violence cases, and juvenile defense. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Charged with Exploitation? Talk to L and L Law Group.
Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London personally handle every case. Free consultation. Frisco, Texas.
L&L Law Group represents clients across North Texas counties for DWI, assault, drug crimes, juvenile defense, outstanding warrants, bond reduction, and expunction matters.
