Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense.

This bill would make the jurisdiction of a criminal action for wage theft or labor trafficking, as defined, also include the county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, as specified.

Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense.

This bill would make the jurisdiction of a criminal action for wage theft or labor trafficking, as defined, also include the county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, as specified.

Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense.

This bill would make the jurisdiction of a criminal action for wage theft or labor trafficking, as defined, also include the county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, as specified.

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1583

Author: Rogers (D)

Introduced: 1/13/26

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 3/12/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal procedure: jurisdiction

SOURCE: Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office

DIGEST:

This bill expands jurisdiction for a criminal action for wage theft or labor trafficking to include the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; allows multiple related cases of wage theft and human trafficking to be tried in the same jurisdiction; and extends jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to an underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offense.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that every person who defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who fraudulently obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and extent as theft of the money or property so obtained. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 532, subd. (a).)
2. Makes it a misdemeanor to violate various sections of the Labor Code pertaining to employee compensation. (Labor (Lab.) Code, § 215.)
3. States that any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof, who does the following, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
4. Willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made, having the ability to pay; or,
5. Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due. (Lab. Code, § 216.)
6. States that in addition to, and independent from, any other penalty provided, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee shall be subject to the following penalties:
7. For each initial violation, $100 for each failure to pay each employee; and,
8. For each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, $200 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25% of the amount willfully withheld. (Lab. Code, § 210.)
9. Defines “wages” for the above provisions to include all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation. (Lab. Code, § 200.)
10. States that the intentional theft of wages in an amount greater than $950 from any one employee, or $2,350 in the aggregate from two or more employees, by an employer in any consecutive 12-month period may be punished as grand theft, which is a felony. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (a).)
11. Defines “theft of wages” for purposes of grand theft as the intentional deprivation of wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation by fraudulent or other unlawful means with the knowledge that the wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation is due to the employee under the law. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (b).)
12. Authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate employee complaints and provide for a hearing in any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation, as provided. (Lab. Code, § 98, subd. (a).)
13. States that a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than $500,000. (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (a).)
14. States that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory in which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
15. States that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)
16. Provides that when a criminal offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within 500 yards of the boundary, territorial jurisdiction is proper within either county. (Pen. Code, § 782.)
17. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to the same transaction or event where there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as belonging to the same class of crimes. (Pen. Code, § 954.)
18. States that if property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory. States that jurisdiction is also proper in any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)
19. Specifies that the jurisdiction of a criminal action for theft, as defined, also includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of a theft offense. (Pen. Code, § 786.5, subd. (b).)
20. States that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property involving the same merchandise, the same scheme, or substantially similar activity occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all offenses. States that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5, subd. (b).)
21. Provides that if one or more specified human trafficking, pimping, and pandering offenses occur in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
22. Indicates the consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court.
23. Requires that the prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
24. Establishes that charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county.
25. States that the court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).)

This bill:

1. Provides that the jurisdiction of a criminal action for wage theft, as specified, or labor trafficking, as specified, includes the county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking.
2. States that if multiple offenses of wage theft or labor trafficking involving the same defendant or defendants occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing to determine if there is good cause to consolidate the cases. Requires that at the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Requires that charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney be returned to that jurisdiction.
3. Extends jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to an underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offenses.

Background

Territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offense is generally proper in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory where it was committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.) In other words, criminal charges must normally be brought in the county where the crime is alleged to have happened. When an offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

Additionally, the rules governing joinder of criminal cases allow prosecutors to charge multiple offenses in a single accusatory pleading (in a single court) when there are two or more different offenses that are connected in their commission, different statements of the same offense, or two or more different offenses of the same class of crime. (Pen. Code, § 954.) A court may, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, order the different offenses or counts in the accusatory pleading be tried separately or divided into two or more groups and each of said groups tried separately. (See Belton v. Superior Court (People) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1281.)

Cases of human trafficking, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense, homicide, theft, including retail theft and shoplifting, robbery, identity theft, incest, and revenge porn, that occur in multiple counties can be consolidated into a single trial, and then tried in a single county. (See Pen. Code, §§ 784.5, 784.7, 785, 786, 786.5, 789, 790, and 791.) The court still has discretion to separate these cases in the interest of justice and for good cause. (Ibid.) The court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, victims and witnesses. Additionally, consolidation based on specified offenses against a single defendant across multiple jurisdictions requires district attorneys in each county to agree to try all counts in one identified county.

Wage theft is punishable as a misdemeanor or felony in California, depending on the value of the wages stolen. Any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer of that person, who does the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:

• 1. Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made; or,
  2. Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due. (Lab. Code, § 216.)

Existing law defines “wages” for the above provisions to include all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation. (Lab. Code, § 200.)

Additionally, the intentional theft of wages in an amount greater than $950 from any one employee, or $2,350 in the aggregate from two or more employees, by an employer in any consecutive 12-month period may be punished as grand theft, which is a felony. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (a).) For purposes of grand theft, “theft of wages” is defined as the intentional deprivation of wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation by fraudulent or other unlawful means with the knowledge that the wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation is due to the employee under the law. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (b).)

There is no jurisdiction statute specifically for wage theft. The jurisdiction of a criminal action for general theft, as specified, includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of a theft offense. If multiple offenses of theft occur in multiple jurisdictions, involving the same defendant or defendants and the same property or scheme, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5 (b).)

A person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services is guilty of human trafficking which is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than $500,000. (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (a).)

If more than one violation of the state’s human trafficking statute occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to a hearing. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).) In determining whether all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for prosecution, the court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction.

The existing code sections governing jurisdiction of a criminal action for theft do not specifically cover acts for wage theft, and only some cases of wage theft fit into existing code sections. This leads to uncertainty in wage theft investigations when workers face situations where their employer lives or works in a location separate from the one where they reside.

This bill allows for wage theft and labor trafficking to be tried in any county where: (a) a victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; (b) a victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into; (c) any portion of the work was performed; or (d) the business or any of its locations were situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking.

This section may be overly broad because, in some cases, these locations may not have a reasonable nexus to the commission of the crime. Where any portion of the work was performed could include a county where someone picked up a few tools for a roof installation and immediately left the county to perform the work. In that case, there may not be a nexus to the county.

This bill also provides that if multiple offenses of wage theft or labor trafficking involving the same defendant or defendants occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction.

Finally, this bill extends jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offenses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/9/26)

Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office (source)

California District Attorneys Association

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/9/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California District Attorneys Association writes:

Labor trafficking and wage theft remain some of the most egregious and profitable criminal enterprises in the world, often victimizing some of California’s most vulnerable residents. Labor trafficking and wage theft victims are often subjected to coercive and continuous exploitation at the hands of their traffickers, who profit financially while causing profound and lasting harm to their victims.

AB 1583 strengthens California’s response to labor trafficking by allowing labor trafficking and wage theft prosecutions to occur in the county where the theft or trafficking occurred, where the victim resided at the time of the theft or trafficking, where any portion of the work was performed, or where the business or any of its locations were situated. This measure also closes a critical loophole by expressly authorizing coordinated prosecutions for multi-jurisdiction offenders. In this regard, AB 1583 solves for labor trafficking and wage theft prosecutions what several other key jurisdictional statutes have solved for human trafficking, identity theft, revenge pornography, and domestic violence prosecutions.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 3/12/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Castillo, Hoover, Johnson, Krell, Lowenthal, Quirk-Silva, Celeste Rodriguez, Valencia

Prepared by: Marshal Lawler / PUB. S. /

6/10/26 16:58:15

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1583 Hearing Date: June 9, 2026

Subject: Criminal procedure: jurisdiction

HISTORY

Source: Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office

Prior Legislation: SB 847 (Reyes), Ch 790, Stats. of 2025

AB 1779 (Irwin), Ch. 165, Stats. of 2024

AB 1612 (Irwin), Ch. 949, Stats. of 2022

AB 1003 (L. Gonzalez), Ch. 325, Stats. of 2021

AB 368 (Muratsuchi), Ch. 379, Stats. of 2017

SB 939 (Block), Ch. 246, Stats. of 2014

AB 2252 (Cohn), Ch. 194, Stats. of 2002

AB 2734 (Pacheco), Ch. 302, Stats. of 1998

Support: California District Attorneys Association; Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 71 - 0

PURPOSE

The purposes of this bill are to: expand jurisdiction for a criminal action for wage theft or labor trafficking to include the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; allow multiple related cases of wage theft and human trafficking to be tried in the same jurisdiction; and extend jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to an underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offense.

Existing law provides that every person who defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who fraudulently obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and extent as theft of the money or property so obtained. (Pen. Code, § 532, subd. (a).)

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to violate various sections of the Labor Code pertaining to employee compensation. (Lab. Code, § 215.)

Existing law states that any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof, who does the following, is guilty of a misdemeanor:

• Willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made, having the ability to pay; or,
• Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due. (Lab. Code, § 216.)

Existing law states that in addition to, and independent from, any other penalty provided, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee shall be subject to the following penalties:

• For each initial violation, $100 for each failure to pay each employee; and,
• For each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, $200 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25% of the amount willfully withheld. (Lab. Code, § 210.)

Existing law defines “wages” for the above provisions to include all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation. (Lab. Code, § 200.)

Existing law states that the intentional theft of wages in an amount greater than $950 from any one employee, or $2,350 in the aggregate from two or more employees, by an employer in any consecutive 12-month period may be punished as grand theft, which is a felony. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (a).)

Existing law defines “theft of wages” for purposes of grand theft as the intentional deprivation of wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation by fraudulent or other unlawful means with the knowledge that the wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation is due to the employee under the law. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (b).)

Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate employee complaints and provide for a hearing in any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation, as provided. (Lab. Code, § 98, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than $500,000. (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory in which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)

Existing law states that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

Existing law provides that when a criminal offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within 500 yards of the boundary, territorial jurisdiction is proper within either county. (Pen. Code, § 782.)

Existing law permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to the same transaction or event where there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as belonging to the same class of crimes. (Pen. Code, § 954.)

Existing law states that if property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory. States that jurisdiction is also proper in any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)

Existing law specifies that the jurisdiction of a criminal action for theft, as defined, also includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of a theft offense. (Pen. Code, § 786.5, subd. (b).)

Existing law states that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property involving the same merchandise, the same scheme, or substantially similar activity occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all offenses. States that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that if one or more specified human trafficking, pimping, and pandering offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:

• Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court.
• The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
• Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county.
• The court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).)

This bill provides that the jurisdiction of a criminal action for wage theft, as specified, or labor trafficking, as specified, includes the county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, the county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking.

This bill states that if multiple offenses of wage theft or labor trafficking involving the same defendant or defendants occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing to determine if there is good cause to consolidate the cases. Requires that at the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Requires that charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney be returned to that jurisdiction.

This bill extends jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to an underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offenses.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

The author writes:

AB 1583 seeks to combat uncertainty surrounding the jurisdiction for prosecution of wage theft and labor trafficking crimes by establishing proper jurisdictions for the prosecution of said crimes.

Wage theft and labor trafficking are issues that plague many workers, but especially the most vulnerable in the United States. These workers include farm workers, hourly workers in the service industry (like restaurants), online workers and generally anyone who has uncertain work hours and pay. These workers often face intense labor for little pay, and any type of wage theft/labor trafficking crime they fall victim to may be potentially devastating to their income.

When workers face situations where their manager/employer lives/works in a location separate from the one where they reside, it can create issues with establishing the jurisdiction where the crime is prosecuted. On top of financial devastation, workers who have been affected by these crimes may also face uncertainty in determining the jurisdiction where the crime may be prosecuted. AB 1583 makes it easier for victims to seek justice in a venue that is convenient for them and for the investigating agencies.

1. Existing Law Governing Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offense is generally proper in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory where it was committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.) In other words, criminal charges must normally be brought in the county where the crime is alleged to have happened. When an offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

Additionally, the rules governing joinder of criminal cases allow prosecutors to charge multiple offenses in a single accusatory pleading (in a single court) when there are two or more different offenses that are connected in their commission, different statements of the same offense, or two or more different offenses of the same class of crime. (Pen. Code, § 954.) A court may, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, order the different offenses or counts in the accusatory pleading be tried separately or divided into two or more groups and each of said group tried separately. (See Belton v. Superior Court (People) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1281.)

Cases of human trafficking, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense, homicide, theft, including retail theft and shoplifting, robbery, identity theft, incest, and revenge porn, that occur in multiple counties can be consolidated into a single trial, and then tried in a single county. (See Pen. Code, §§ 784.5, 784.7, 785, 786, 786.5, 789, 790, and 791.) The court still has discretion to separate these cases in the interest of justice and for good cause. (Ibid.) The court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, victims and witnesses. Additionally, consolidation based on specified offenses against a single defendant across multiple jurisdictions requires district attorneys in each county to agree to try all counts in one identified county.

1. Jurisdiction for the Offense of Wage Theft

Wage theft is punishable as a misdemeanor or felony in California, depending on the value of the wages stolen. Any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer of that person, who does the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:

• Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made; or,
• Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due. (Lab. Code, § 216.)

Existing law defines “wages” for the above provisions to include all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation. (Lab. Code, § 200.)

Additionally, the intentional theft of wages in an amount greater than $950 from any one employee, or $2,350 in the aggregate from two or more employees, by an employer in any consecutive 12-month period may be punished as grand theft, which is a felony. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (a).) For purposes of grand theft, “theft of wages” is defined as the intentional deprivation of wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation by fraudulent or other unlawful means with the knowledge that the wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation is due to the employee under the law. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (b).)

There is no jurisdiction statute specifically for wage theft. The jurisdiction of a criminal action for general theft, as specified, includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of a theft offense. If multiple offenses of theft occur in multiple jurisdictions, involving the same defendant or defendants and the same property or scheme, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5 (b).)

If property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory. Additionally, jurisdiction may also be competent in any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)

1. Jurisdiction for the Offense of Labor Trafficking

A person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services is guilty of human trafficking which is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than $500,000. (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (a).)

If more than one violation of the state’s human trafficking statute occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to a hearing. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).) In determining whether all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for prosecution, the court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction.

1. Constitutional Issues of Vicinage and Due Process

Vicinage means the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area where the offense was committed. However, vicinage is not a “necessary feature” of the due process right to a jury trial. (See Price v. Superior Court (People) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1065.) Venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool is usually selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. Vicinage is not a necessary feature to the right of a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial.” (Price, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1065-1069.)

However, while the U.S. Constitution does not require a jury drawn from a defendant’s community to be fair, that does not mean the state has the right to try a defendant anywhere it chooses. There still must be a reasonable connection between the commission of the crime and the county where trial occurs.

The Legislature's power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (Price, supra, at 1075, citing Martin v. Beto (5th Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 741, 748.)

To permit otherwise would be to allow prosecutors to pick any county most likely to yield a conviction without reference to where the crime occurred. The purpose of consolidation is judicial economy—to avoid victims and witnesses testifying multiple times. It is not for prosecutorial convenience or success.

Statutes permitting consolidation, such as the statute permitting consolidation in human trafficking cases, expressly condition consolidation on a hearing to determine whether the charged offenses were connected together in their commission, or of the same class of crimes or offenses, and that connection supplied the necessary reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (People v. Delgado (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 839, 847.)

1. Effect of This Bill

The existing code sections governing jurisdiction of a criminal action for theft do not specifically cover acts for wage theft, and only some cases of wage theft fit into existing code sections. This leads to uncertainty in wage theft investigations when workers face situations where their employer lives or works in a location separate from the one where they reside.

This bill allows for wage theft and labor trafficking to be tried in any county where: (a) a victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; (b) a victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into; (c) any portion of the work was performed; or (d) the business or any of its locations were situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking.

This section may be overly broad because, in some cases, these locations may not have a reasonable nexus to the commission of the crime. Where any portion of the work was performed could include a county where someone picked up a few tools for a roof installation and immediately left the county to perform the work. In that case, there may not be a nexus to the county. To address this concern, the author and Committee may consider clarifying that jurisdiction would be proper in any county where a “substantial portion” of the work was performed, rather than “any portion.”

Furthermore, human trafficking does not always involve an employment contract or a business. The author and Committee may consider amendments that clarify that the employment contract or business in question would need to be related to the underlying wage theft or labor trafficking.

This bill also provides that if multiple offenses of wage theft or labor trafficking involving the same defendant or defendants occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution must present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction.

Finally, this bill extends jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offenses.

1. Argument in Support

The California District Attorneys Association writes:

Labor trafficking and wage theft remain some of the most egregious and profitable criminal enterprises in the world, often victimizing some of California’s most vulnerable residents. Labor trafficking and wage theft victims are often subjected to coercive and continuous exploitation at the hands of their traffickers, who profit financially while causing profound and lasting harm to their victims.

AB 1583 strengthens California’s response to labor trafficking by allowing labor

trafficking and wage theft prosecutions to occur in the county where the theft or

trafficking occurred, where the victim resided at the time of the theft or trafficking, where any portion of the work was performed, or where the business or any of its locations were situated. This measure also closes a critical loophole by expressly authorizing coordinated prosecutions for multi-jurisdiction offenders. In this regard, AB1583 solves for labor trafficking and wage theft prosecutions, what several other key jurisdictional statutes have solved for human trafficking, identity theft, revenge pornography, and domestic violence prosecutions.

-- END --

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Authorizes multiple charges of wage theft or labor trafficking to be consolidated and prosecuted in any county in which the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking, any county in which the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, any county in which any portion of the work was performed, or any county in which the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking. Specifically, this bill:

1. States if multiple offenses of wage theft or labor trafficking involving the same defendant or defendants occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a consolidation hearing in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
   
2. Requires the prosecution, at the consolidation hearing, to present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue.
   
3. Mandates that any charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that jurisdiction.
   
4. States jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying wage theft or labor trafficking offenses.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
2. States that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, or the acts constituting or requisite to committing the offense occur in more than one territorial jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)
3. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to the same transaction or event where there is common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes. (Pen. Code, § 954.)
   
4. Allows property crimes occurring in one jurisdictional territory if property is taken to another jurisdictional territory and an arrest is made there, to be prosecuted in either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 786.)
   
5. Provides that the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General for theft, as defined, or for receiving stolen property, as well as all associated offenses connected in their commission of the underlying theft, shall also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
   
6. Provides that if one or more violations of specified sex offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court;
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue; and,
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (a).)
      
7. Provides that if any domestic violence crime, as defined, occurs in more than one jurisdiction, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses, the jurisdiction of any of the offenses and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense is the jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court.
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (b).)
      
8. Provides that if one or more specified human trafficking, pimping, and pandering offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court.
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county.
   4. The court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to the victim or victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 1583 seeks to combat uncertainty surrounding the jurisdiction for prosecution of wage theft and labor trafficking crimes by establishing proper jurisdictions for the prosecution of said crimes.

“Wage theft and labor trafficking are issues that plague many workers, but especially the most vulnerable in the United States. These workers include farmworkers, hourly workers in the service industry (like restaurants), online workers and generally anyone who has uncertain work hours and pay. These workers often face intense labor for little pay, and any type of wage theft/labor trafficking crime they fall victim too may be potentially devastating to their income.

“When workers face situations where their manager/employer lives/works in a location separate from the one where they reside, it can create issues with establishing the jurisdiction where the crime is prosecuted. On top of financial devastation, workers who have been affected by these crimes may also face uncertainty in determining the jurisdiction where the crime may be prosecuted. AB 1583 makes it easier for victims to seek justice in a venue that is convenient for them and for the investigating agencies.”

1. Wage Theft: Failure to pay wages is generally enforced by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.^[1] Wage theft was specifically criminalized as grand theft in 2022. Penal Code section 487m states:

Notwithstanding [specific provisions] of the Labor Code, the intentional theft of wages in an amount greater than $950 from any one employee, or $2,350 in the aggregate from two or more employees, by an employer in any consecutive 12-month period may be punished as grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487m, subd. (a).)

Wage theft, as a criminal offense, is another way of charging grand theft, but without the requirement that each victim suffer a loss greater than $950 each. Wage theft in the form of failure to pay overtime may be $2350 across 25 different employees, but no single individual suffered a loss of more than a couple hundred dollars. Penal Code section 487m would allow that to be charged as grand theft.

Additionally, the Wage Theft Protection Act of 2011 created criminal penalties on businesses that do not comply with court ordered judgements for failure to pay wages or provide notice to the employee of their rate of pay.

An employer who willfully fails to pay a final court judgment or final order issued by the Labor Commissioner for wages due to an employee who has been terminated or who quits within 90 days of the date that the judgment was entered or the order became final may be charged with a misdemeanor, provided the employer had the ability to pay the amount of the judgment or order. …If the total amount of wages due is more than $1,000 upon conviction therefor, the employer shall be fined not less than $10,000 nor more than $20,000 or imprisoned in a county jail for not less than six months, nor more than one year, or both the fine and imprisonment, for each offense. If there are multiple failures to pay wages involving more than one employee, the total amount of wages due to all employees shall be aggregated together for purposes of determining the level of fine and the term of imprisonment. (Lab. Code, § 1197.2, subd. (a).)

Civil and criminal penalties are available in the Wage Theft Protection Act of 2011 for each offense. In addition, if an employer fails to pay wages to more than one employee, the total amount of wages due to all employees will be aggregated for purposes of determining the level of the fine and the term of imprisonment.

Finally, Labor Code section 215 criminalizes failure to pay wages to temporary workers, failure to pay wages on a specified regular basis to hourly, agricultural, and domestic workers, and payment at a specified time for striking employees. It also criminalizes payment in the form of paper obligations (IOUs).

1. Consolidation: An accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts, or if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in different cases, but in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated.

As it pertains to different crimes charged in the same county, Penal Code section 954 limits consolidation, by granting a trial court, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, to order the different offenses or counts in the accusatory pleading be tried separately or divided into two or more groups and each of said group tried separately. (See Belton v. Superior Court (People) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1281.)

Several statutes allow for offenses involving one defendant, the same class of offenses, and multiple victims. (See Pen. Code, §§ 784.5, 784.7, 785, 786, 786.5, 789, 790, and 791.) There are also offenses that authorize consolidation of out-of-state crimes related to terrorism, receipt of stolen property, and treason. (See Pen. Code, §§ 787, 788, 789.) Offenses that may be consolidated in one county when there are multiple victims across multiple jurisdictions include sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense, homicide, theft, including retail theft and shoplifting, robbery, identity theft, incest, and revenge porn, among others. Consolidation based on specified offenses against a single defendant across multiple jurisdictions require District Attorneys in each county to agree to try all counts in one identified county.

AB 1779 (Irwin), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2024, expanded consolidation options for theft, including petty theft and shoplifting, as well as receipt of stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 786.5, subds. (a & b).) It also expanded the ability of county district attorneys to consolidate specified theft crimes. Penal Code section 786 allows a district attorney to seek consolidation for theft generally to include where the property was stolen and where the property ended up, as well as any contiguous county if the arrest is made in a contiguous county. However, that provision requires a defendant’s knowing waiver of venue. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)

This bill allows a defendant charged with wage theft or labor trafficking, as specified, in multiple jurisdictions to face a consolidated trial on all charged counts in one county based on the following factors: (a) where the victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; (b) where the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into; (c) where any portion of the work was performed, or; (d) where the business or any of its locations was situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking. However, as explained below, there are constitutional restrictions on consolidation. Additionally, if multiple charges apply to the same defendant, jurisdiction is proper in any of those counties where the alleged crime occurred subject to a consolidation hearing. However, if there is only one count of wage theft, for example, any county where the victim resided, the victim was present when the employment agreement was “entered into”, where any portion of the work was performed, or where the business or its locations are situated, would be proper.

1. Vicinage and Due Process: Vicinage means the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area where the offense was committed. However, vicinage is not a “necessary feature” of the due process right to a jury trial. (See Price v. Superior Court (People) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1065.) Venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool is usually selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. Vicinage is not a necessary feature to the right of a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial.” (Price, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1065-1069.)

As explained above, venue is generally proper in the county where the crime occurred, and the law also includes several exceptions to the venue provision where multiple crimes from different counties may be tried in one county if it involves the same defendant or the same class of crimes.

This bill is premised on Penal Code section 786.5, subdivision (b) which allows for consolidating multiple theft charges in any place where one offense was committed, any place where the stolen merchandise was recovered, or any place where the defendant instigated, procured, promoted, or aided the commission of a theft offense. Subdivision (b), which is the only section available to county district attorneys, requires demonstrating that a petty theft, retail theft, or receipt stolen property may be prosecuted where: (a) an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred; (b) the county in which the merchandise was recovered; or (c) the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of a petty theft, retail theft, or receipt of stolen property, or in abetting the parties concerned in the commission. (See Pen. Code, § 786.5, subd. (b).)

If multiple offenses of theft or violations of retail theft or receipt of stolen property, either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a consolidation hearing.

However, while the U.S. Constitution does not require a jury drawn from of a defendant’s community to be fair, that does not mean the state has the right to try a defendant anywhere it chooses. There still must be a reasonable connection between the commission of the crime and the county where trial occurs.

The Legislature's power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (Price, supra, at 1075, citing Martin v. Beto (5th Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 741, 748.)

To suggest otherwise, would be to allow prosecutors to pick any county most likely to yield a conviction without reference to where the crime occurred. The purpose of consolidation is judicial economy – to avoid victims and witnesses from testifying multiple times – it is not for prosecutorial convenience or success.

Section 784.7 expressly conditioned joinder on a hearing, pursuant to Penal Code section 954 to determine whether the charged offenses were connected together in their commission, or of the same class of crimes or offenses, and that connection supplied the necessary reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (People v. Delgado (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 839, 847.)

This bill allows for wage theft and labor trafficking to be tried in any county where: (a) a victim resided at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking; (b) a victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into; (c) any portion of the work was performed; or (d) the business or any of its locations were situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking. This section may be overly broad because, in some cases, these locations may not have a reasonable nexus to the commission of the crime, but it is expressly authorized by statute.

For example: A roofing business hired daily laborers to perform work, and either underpaid the workers or did not pay them at all, then pretended to go out of business, only to re-open their business again but under another name. The business owner or owners may be charged with wage theft pursuant to Penal Code section 487m. Venue would be proper in any number of places, including where a victim resided, where most of the work was performed, or where the defendant’s business is located.

But where an employment contract was “entered into” could be several places – where it was signed, where terms were agreed upon, at someone’s home, or at some other location convenient to one of the parties. That may result in venue in a county having absolutely no relationship to the wage theft. Additionally, where any “labor” was performed could include a county where someone picked up a few tools for a roof installation and immediately left the county to perform the work. In that case, there may not be a nexus to the county.

Finally, as noted above, in the existing exceptions to venue, there is usually a cross-admissibility to evidence regardless of where the crime is tried. For instance, in People v. Delgado, supra, the court found that since Penal Code section 784.7 allowed for certain sex offenses involving different victims to be tried in any county a victim resided and evidence of child victims was cross-admissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108, that section did not violate the vicinage requirement. (People v. Delgado, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at 847.)

In this case, it is unclear whether one county would have cross-admissibility of evidence of alleged wage theft across multiple victims, incidents, and circumstances. One employee may have only been denied overtime while two other employees were not paid at all. One employee may have worked one day, and another employee may have worked every day for six months. If an alleged wage theft had an employee pick up supplies on a particular day in Alameda County, but has only ever performed work in Sacramento and Yolo County, the employee lives in Sacramento County, the business is located in Sacramento County and the owner lives in Sacramento County, it may be a violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial to try a wage theft case in Alameda County on the allegation that one of the victims “performed work” there on one day. Tying multiple charges against a defendant in a county that is probably more favorable may give an unfair advantage to the prosecution to tie weak charges together in a way that seems more persuasive to a jury. While a defendant may be able to argue that a nexus does not exist in all counts, the statute clearly provides jurisdiction in a broad sense.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, “[The] existing law on jurisdiction in theft cases does not specifically address acts of wage theft or labor trafficking. This vagueness in the law has led to uncertainty in the investigation and prosecution of some of these cases, especially where contracts are entered into via digital channels such as the internet or phone, with employees working remotely for companies with ambiguous locations. For example: a worker lives in County A and enters a contract over the phone with an employer (who also lives in County A) for two days of labor to occur in Counties B and C. The contract was entered into while the worker was present in County A. The labor was completed in Counties B and C, and the employer failed to pay the employee the owed wages. Under existing laws, it is unclear when or where the theft occurred. There is no merchandise or other tangible property to recover, and it’s unclear in which county the employer instigated, procured, promoted, or aided in the commission of a theft offense because the contract was formed on the phone, and the employer’s location at the time of the contract is unknown. Section 786.5 does not neatly apply to this fact pattern. County A wants to prosecute but is unsure whether it has jurisdiction, thus impacting the investigation and filing of criminal charges against the employer. Unfortunately, this problem happens too often to ignore and has been amplified in Los Angeles County in the wake of last year’s massive wildfires, impacting laborers hired for cleanup and restoration work.

“AB 1583 would strengthen CA’s response to labor trafficking and wage theft by creating a specific jurisdictional statute for these crimes, expressly allowing labor trafficking and wage theft prosecutions to occur in the county where the victim resided at the time of the theft or trafficking, the county where the victim was present at the time the employment contract was entered into, the county where any portion of the work was performed, or the county where the offending business or any of its locations were situated at the time of the wage theft or labor trafficking. AB 1583 would also close a critical loophole by authorizing coordinated prosecutions for multi-jurisdiction offenders in labor trafficking and wage theft cases.”

1. Argument in Opposition: None on file.
   
2. Related Legislation: SB 648 (Smallwood-Cuevas), Chapter 93, Statutes of 2025, authorize the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue a citation or file a civil action for gratuities taken or withheld.
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1003 (L. Gonzalez), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2022 criminalizes wage theft as grand theft where a person suffers more than $950 in wage loss, or more than one person suffers an aggregate of $2,350.
      
   2. AB 1613 (Irwin), Chapter 949, Statutes of 2022, expands the territorial jurisdiction for a criminal action brought by the Attorney General for theft, organized retail theft, receipt of stolen property or conspiracy to commit those crimes, to include the county where the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense.
      
   3. AB 1779 (Irwin), Chapter 165, Statutes of 2024, authorizes county district attorneys to file specified theft offences in multiple jurisdictions against the same defendant or defendants.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Co-Sponsor)
Sonoma County District Attorney's Office (Co-Sponsor)
California District Attorneys Association

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by:

1. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/. The purpose of the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement is to combat wage theft, protect workers from retaliation, and educate the public by putting “earned wages into workers' pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.” This office is also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office. ↑