A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Victims urge CSLB to push for criminal penalties, restitution in contractor‑fraud cases

June 05, 2026 | Contractors State License Board, Other State Agencies, Executive, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Victims urge CSLB to push for criminal penalties, restitution in contractor‑fraud cases
Chair Mel Gaza called the Contractors State License Board to order on June 5 and opened the public‑comment period, where several speakers urged stronger remedies for contractor fraud.

Andrea Montano, founder and executive director of Over My Card, told the board she represents more than 300 victims across six contractors and said the cases she’s documented involve homeowners, unpaid subcontractors and vendors, investors and tax agencies. Montano said license revocation alone “is not a proportional consequence” for large‑scale fraud schemes and asked the board to support three changes: criminal punishment that leads to restitution, a reliable restitution mechanism, and standardized enforcement that prevents similar referrals from scattering across different administrative tracks.

Another public commenter who identified himself as Greg, a wildfire survivor, described hiring a contractor after losing his home and said civil litigation and the licensing complaint process moved too slowly to provide meaningful relief. “A Senate resolution recognizing a problem is not the same as a law that solves it,” Greg said, urging the board to help close the gap between recognition and enforceable protection.

Speaker Luke described using a factory‑built home contractor to construct an accessible unit for a family member, and said off‑site modular construction lacks milestone payment protections available for traditional on‑site builds. Luke told the board a bill on the agenda addresses that gap and said he would comment again when the item was reached.

The commenters’ requests ranged from statutory changes to better coordination with criminal prosecutors and clearer remedies for restitution. The board received these comments during the public‑comment portion of the meeting but did not take formal action at that time; multiple speakers said they will return to the board when relevant agenda items are heard.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee