Most fraud cases are won or lost on intent, and rental application cases will be no different: the question is whether a person knowingly lied or simply made a mistake on a form. As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where I oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys, I have defended fraud and identity cases in Hillsborough County courtrooms for more than 25 years. Our attorneys read every word of the application and every document the landlord relied on before anything else.

This guide explains what HB 1293 (chapter 2026-143, Laws of Florida) made a crime, what it did not, why the Legislature passed it unanimously, and how these charges are defended.

What Does Florida’s New Rental Fraud Law Prohibit?

Section 817.537, Florida Statutes, titled “Fraudulent entry of a residential dwelling unit,” provides that a person may not “enter into and take possession of a residential dwelling unit” by knowingly and willfully doing any of three things:

1. Lying about identity in writing. Making, or causing to be made, a materially false written statement “relating to the person’s identity” in a rental application for a residential tenancy.
2. Using fake documents. Presenting forged, fictitious, or counterfeit documents to the landlord, “including, but not limited to, a driver license, an identification card, a bank statement, or a paystub.”
3. Impersonation. Impersonating another person in whose name a rental application is submitted, in order to sign a lease or take possession.

A violation is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The law took effect October 1, 2026, after Governor DeSantis signed it on June 12, 2026.

What Does the New Law Not Cover?

The law is narrower than many news reports suggest, and the details matter in court. Three limits stand out in the text:

• The person must take possession. The statute requires entering into and taking possession of the unit. A false application that is rejected, or a lease that is signed but never occupied, does not complete this crime, though other fraud laws may still apply.
• Written statements must relate to identity. A false statement under the first prong must concern the applicant’s identity. Overstating income or leaving out an old eviction on the form, without a forged document, is not covered by that prong. A fake paystub or doctored bank statement, however, is covered by the second prong.
• The conduct must be knowing and willful. An honest mistake, a typo, or information entered by someone else without the applicant’s knowledge is not a crime under this statute.

Older laws still fill some gaps. Section 817.03 has long made it a first-degree misdemeanor to make a false statement in writing to obtain property or credit, and Florida’s identity theft law, section 817.568, applies when someone uses another person’s personal identification information without consent.

Why Did Florida Pass HB 1293?

Landlords and property managers told lawmakers that application fraud has become common and harder to spot. A survey by the National Multifamily Housing Council, conducted from November 2023 to January 2024, found that 93.3% of 75 responding apartment owners, developers, and managers had experienced fraud in the prior 12 months. Of those, 84.3% reported falsified paystubs, employment references, or income documents, and 70.0% reported identity theft or fake ID documents. Respondents said fraudulent applications accounted for an average of 23.8% of their eviction filings.

Florida’s identity theft problem adds to the concern. According to the Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2024, Floridians filed 115,840 identity theft reports in 2024, or 528 per 100,000 residents, the highest rate of any state.

Eric Garduño of the Bay Area Apartment Association told Bay News 9 that artificial intelligence is making it “harder and harder to distinguish the genuine documents from the fraudulent ones.” Tenant advocates disagreed with the approach. Charles Phillips of the St. Pete Tenants Union told the station that “criminal penalties are absolutely not necessary,” and critics warned that a felony record can make it harder to find future housing and work.

The law also builds on Florida’s 2024 squatter law, which created a fast sheriff’s removal process under section 82.036 for unauthorized occupants who were never tenants. HB 1293 addresses people who become tenants through deception. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the landlord’s underlying interest, the right to exclude, as “one of the most treasured” rights of property ownership in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021), a case about union organizers’ access to farmland that the House staff analysis cited for that principle.

How Did HB 1293 Move Through the Legislature?

The bill passed every committee and both chambers without a single “no” vote. Representative Greco sponsored the House bill, and Senator Rodriguez sponsored the identical Senate bill, SB 1224. The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee added definitions and clarified the impersonation language.

Vote tallies come from the official bill history and the House Judiciary Committee’s analysis, which projected an “indeterminate” increase in prison beds.

What Can a Landlord Do After Discovering Rental Fraud?

A landlord can end the lease quickly but still cannot lock a tenant out. HB 1293 amended section 83.56 so that fraudulent entry under section 817.537(2) is a lease violation that cannot be cured, “regardless of whether criminal proceedings have commenced.” The landlord can give written notice terminating the rental agreement, and the tenant has 7 days to leave.

If the tenant does not leave, the landlord must still go through a court eviction. Self-help, such as changing the locks or removing belongings, remains illegal in Florida. For tenants, a termination notice based on alleged fraud is also a warning sign that a criminal referral may follow.

How Do You Fight a Rental Fraud Charge in Florida?

The State must prove knowledge, willfulness, materiality, and possession, and each element is open to challenge. Our Tampa white collar crime attorney team looks at these questions:

1. Who prepared the application? Applications are often filled out by relatives, roommates, or third-party “approval services” that promise to get people approved. Proof that someone else made the false statement or created the document can defeat the knowledge element.
2. Was the statement about identity, and was it material? A false statement under the first prong must relate to identity and be material to the landlord’s decision.
3. Was the document actually forged? Screening software flags documents for many reasons, including formatting from legitimate payroll systems. The State must prove the document was forged, fictitious, or counterfeit.
4. Did the person take possession? Without possession of the unit, this specific crime is not complete.
5. When did it happen? The statute applies only to conduct on or after October 1, 2026.

These cases usually begin with a landlord’s complaint to police, not an arrest. If a property manager or detective has contacted you about your application, representation before charges are filed gives our attorneys a chance to resolve the dispute, often through restitution or a move-out agreement, before the State Attorney’s Office decides whether to file.

This post is part of our guide to the new Florida criminal laws that took effect October 1, 2026, which summarizes all eight laws in one place.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is lying about income on a rental application a felony in Florida?

Not by itself under the identity prong, but using a fake paystub, bank statement, or other forged document to support the claim is a third-degree felony if you take possession of the unit. The Brancato Law Firm reviews exactly what was submitted, because the difference between a false answer and a forged document can decide the charge.

Can I be arrested if my roommate lied on our rental application?

Only if the State can prove you knowingly and willfully participated in the false statement or fake document. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build a timeline of who filled out and submitted each part of the application.

Is using an “approval service” for a rental application illegal?

It can be, if the service creates fake paystubs, bank statements, or references that you knowingly submit. Applicants are sometimes misled by these services, and The Brancato Law Firm treats proof of what you were told as central to the defense, as explained by our fraud defense attorneys.

Can my landlord evict me for rental application fraud?

Yes. A landlord can terminate the lease with 7 days’ written notice and no opportunity to cure, but must still file an eviction case if you do not leave. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm handle the criminal side and can coordinate with your landlord-tenant counsel.

What is the penalty for rental application fraud in Florida?

It is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, and a conviction can follow you into future housing and job applications. The Brancato Law Firm pursues outcomes such as diversion or dismissal after restitution where the facts support them.

Does the 2026 rental fraud law apply to squatters?

It applies to people who obtain a rental through a false identity, fake documents, or impersonation. Squatters who never had a lease are handled under Florida’s 2024 squatter removal law and trespass laws, and our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm defend both kinds of cases.

Talk to a Tampa Fraud Defense Lawyer Today

For more about our defense strategies, visit our White Collar Crimes practice page.

A fraud complaint from a landlord can become a felony charge weeks or months later. Our attorneys will review the application, the documents, and who prepared them, and we will work to resolve the matter before charges are filed when we can. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159. Call us at any hour; our office is two blocks from the courthouse. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish and Haitian Creole speakers facing criminal charges.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

A Tampa Criminal Defense Case Study

By Rocky Brancato

Early in my career, I tried a case that taught me a lesson I still carry today: never accept the narrative that police and prosecutors present at face value. Although the case made headlines across Florida, and although the State’s theory seemed airtight, I discovered something important when I dug deeper. As a young attorney facing witnesses who thought they could push me around, I learned that thorough investigation changes everything.

To this day, every time I feel tempted to cut corners—to believe the story the State tells without digging deeper—I think about this case and what thorough investigation revealed.

The Case That Made Headlines

My client sat in a Correctional Institution in the Florida Panhandle, serving two life sentences plus 55 years. Years earlier, a Broward County jury had convicted him of a violent crime. Consequently, he faced spending the rest of his life behind bars.

Then something strange happened. The Florida Department of Corrections notified the original prosecutor that my client would soon walk free. According to prison records, court orders had dramatically reduced his sentences. As a result, with credit for time served, he would leave prison in a matter of months.

The prosecutor reacted with shock. After checking with the court, he discovered that no judge had ever granted such a sentence reduction. Therefore, he concluded that someone had forged the documents in the prison’s possession.

News organizations across the state picked up the story. Headlines announced that a dangerous inmate had nearly “forged his own release.” Meanwhile, the prosecutor gave interviews portraying himself as the hero who caught the scheme. Subsequently, authorities charged my client with attempted escape, and he faced an additional 30 years in prison.

That’s when I got the case.

The State’s Theory

The prosecution’s theory seemed simple and convincing: my client had forged court documents and submitted them to the prison to secure his release. After all, he had a history of forgery. Moreover, he was intelligent and desperate. Therefore, case closed—or so they thought.

When reporters asked how the Department of Corrections had accepted the documents, officials responded confidently: “We followed procedures. The order was verified.”

That statement immediately caught my attention. If officials had verified the documents, I wanted to know exactly how they had done so.

Reconstructing the Paper Trail

I went to work immediately. Because this happened before electronic filing became standard, court orders arrived at prisons by mail, on paper. If my client had forged these documents, I needed to understand exactly how they had entered the system.

First, I took depositions from everyone involved. I questioned the Department of Corrections personnel who had received and processed the documents. Next, I deposed the judge whose signature appeared on the orders. Finally, I deposed the prosecutor who had made headlines claiming to have caught the scheme.

Throughout this process, I meticulously followed the paper trail. What I discovered surprised even me:

• Officials logged the documents into the prison’s official mail system. The Department of Corrections maintained logs for all incoming mail, with a separate log for official court documents. Notably, these orders appeared on the official log.
• The documents originated from the court—not a random address. In other words, no one had mailed them from some outside location. Instead, they arrived through official channels, originating from the Broward County courthouse.
• The clerk of court had clocked in the documents. As a result, the court system contained a record of them.
• The signature matched the judge’s handwriting. Importantly, no one disputed this fact. The signature on the documents looked consistent with the judge’s authentic signature.

The Fingerprint in the Clerk’s File

After I had reconstructed the paper trail and demonstrated verification at each level, the State produced another piece of evidence: they claimed my client’s fingerprint appeared on the order.

However, here was the critical problem: the fingerprint allegedly appeared on the document sitting in the actual clerk of court’s file in Broward County.

Think carefully about what this means. My client remained incarcerated in a maximum security prison in the Panhandle. Meanwhile, the document with his alleged fingerprint sat in the clerk’s file at the Broward County courthouse, hundreds of miles away. When exactly did he touch it? More importantly, how could he possibly have touched it?

At trial, I challenged the fingerprint examiner directly. The examiner could not adequately demonstrate the methodology—specifically, he could not show the jury exactly why this print matched my client and could not have come from anyone else. Consequently, the science did not hold up under scrutiny.

But even setting aside the examiner’s problems, the logistics made no sense. If my client had forged this document from inside prison, how did it end up in the official court file with his print on it? Either he had outside help—or the document was not a forgery at all.

Two Possibilities

I deliberately avoided arguing that the document was or was not authentic. I did not need to make that argument. Instead, I showed the jury that the State’s theory—that my client had forged these documents from inside a prison cell—simply did not add up.

Consider what I demonstrated: the documents came through official channels, clerks logged them at every checkpoint, the signature matched the judge’s handwriting, and they ended up in the official court file.

Given these facts, only two possibilities existed: either this involved an inside job with people who had access to the court system, or the judge had actually signed the order.

Either way, the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my client—locked in a cell hundreds of miles away—had forged anything.

The Hanging Chad Defense

The trial took place in Pensacola, in the conservative Florida Panhandle. Significantly, it occurred not long after the 2000 presidential election—the election that came down to Florida, to Broward County, and to hanging chads.

The whole country had just watched Broward County officials bungle one of the most important elections in American history. People remembered the butterfly ballots, the dimpled chads, and the recounts that never seemed to end. For months, South Florida bureaucrats had served as a national punchline.

Now the State asked a conservative Pensacola jury to trust that those same South Florida officials had correctly identified a forgery. Keep in mind, the documents had traveled through official channels, bore an authentic-looking signature, passed verification at every checkpoint, and sat in the official court file.

The Witness Who Underestimated Me

I was a young attorney at the time. The State called two prosecutors from Fort Lauderdale to testify—the prosecutor who had made headlines for catching the scheme, and a chief assistant state attorney.

During my cross-examination of the chief assistant, he tried to belittle me. In front of the jury, he attempted to “mentor” me on how I was asking questions. He seemed to think he could push around the young defense attorney and score points with the jury in the process.

He was wrong.

I had done the work. The depositions were completed. I had reconstructed the entire paper trail. I knew every detail of how those documents had traveled through the system. His condescension did not change the facts—and the facts did not support the State’s theory.

The Verdict

The jury returned with their verdict: Not guilty.

No one ever publicized the verdict. I felt satisfied with the result, and reaching out to the media would not have benefited my client. The headlines had called him a forger who nearly escaped. The quiet verdict told a different story.

The jury found reasonable doubt because I showed them that the State’s theory required believing something that made no sense. They did not need to decide whether the judge had signed the order or whether someone else had helped. They simply needed to see that the State had not proven my client did it.

The Lesson I Carry to This Day

This case taught me to never accept the narrative that police and prosecutors present at face value.

Consider what the State had: a complete theory, newspaper coverage that had already convicted my client, an elected judge as a witness, and an experienced prosecutor who had made himself the hero of the story. Everything seemed wrapped up neatly.

However, when I did the work—when I deposed everyone, followed every document, and reconstructed every step of the chain—the “airtight” case fell apart completely.

To this day, every time I feel tempted to cut corners, every time I feel tempted to believe the story the State tells without digging deeper, I think about this case. I remember what thorough investigation revealed. And then I do the work.

What This Means for You

If you face criminal charges, the State will present a theory. They will have evidence. They may have witnesses who seem credible and experts who seem authoritative. The newspapers may have already decided you are guilty.

Nevertheless, theories can be challenged. Evidence can be scrutinized. Witnesses can be cross-examined effectively. And when an attorney commits to doing the hard work of investigation and preparation, cases that seem impossible to win can indeed be won.

That lesson has guided my practice for over 25 years. I learned it as a young attorney in a Pensacola courtroom, facing a witness who thought he could push me around.

He was wrong. And the jury agreed.

About the Author

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato is the founding attorney of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a criminal defense practice in Tampa, Florida. With more than 25 years of experience—including service as Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office—Rocky has built a career on the principle that thorough investigation wins cases. He has tried hundreds of cases and continues to apply the lessons from cases like this one to every client he represents.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our step-by-step guide to what happens in a Florida criminal case.

Related Articles

• The Injuries Were Real, But They Were Not From the Alleged Rape
• A Hard Lesson About Jail Visits in Tampa
• Top 10 Criminal Defense Strategies in Tampa
• Tampa Criminal Trial Attorney
• Florida Criminal Trial Consulting