State RegulationsAZ specificDifficulty 3/5
A producer in Scottsdale knowingly alters applicants' answers on applications to get them approved. If the Director seeks civil penalties for these intentional violations under A.R.S. 20-295(F), what aggregate cap applies to the penalties for intentional violations?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why C is correct
A.R.S. 20-295(F) allows a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 per intentional violation, with an aggregate cap of $15,000 for intentional violations. Knowing misconduct such as altering applications sits squarely in the intentional tier, so the Director may stack per-violation penalties up to the $15,000 aggregate and may also order restitution to the injured consumers.
Why the other options are wrong
- A) Wrong because $2,500 is the per-violation figure for intentional violations, not the aggregate cap; the aggregate for intentional violations is $15,000 under A.R.S. 20-295(F).
- B) Wrong because $5,000 per violation is the fraud civil penalty figure under A.R.S. 20-466.02 and is not the aggregate cap under A.R.S. 20-295(F).
- D) Wrong because A.R.S. 20-295(F) does impose an aggregate cap for intentional violations; the penalties are not unlimited.
Memory hook
Intentional math: $2,500 each time, $15,000 all-in.