11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(b)(1) does not automatically stay a criminal proceeding against a debtor.

Wise v. Ritter (In Re Wise) · filed 1982-12-01(b)(1)

Although the automatic stay provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not stay criminal prosecutions against debtors, in certain circumstances bankruptcy courts have power pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enjoin litigants involved in such proceedings.

Section 362(a) prohibits a creditor from threatening a debtor and filing a criminal complaint primarily to collect a prepetition debt.

DeLay v. Underwood (In Re DeLay) · filed 1982-12-17(a)

This Court has no trouble finding that Mr. Underwood violated the terms of the automatic stay by threatening the debtor prior to the § 341 meeting and again by filing the criminal complaint with the sheriff.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the continuation of a state criminal proceeding against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Holder v. Dotson (In Re Holder) · filed 1982-12-28(b)(1)

The automatic stay provisions of § 362 do not prevent the continuation of this state criminal proceeding.

Section 362(b)(1)'s criminal proceedings exception does not cover a creditor's postpetition contacts that use only the threat of prosecution to collect a debt.

Matter of Van Riper · filed 1982-12-23(b)(1)

Only the threat of a criminal prosecution actually existed. That threat was exploited by the La Fleurs and their attorney to effect collection of the debt from Van Riper. Therefore, the contacts with the Van Ripers after filing are not within the exception to the automatic stay for the commencement of a criminal proceeding.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings against a debtor, but a civil tort suit remains subject to the automatic stay even if the debtor’s underlying conduct might be criminal.

Matter of Jones · filed 1983-02-04(b)(1)

Whether the damage to the automobile of Defendants might be a “criminal act” is not crucial because the state court suit was a civil action sounding in tort. There is no evidence of any “commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(2) permits collection of alimony from property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate.

Summerlin v. Summerlin (In Re Summerlin) · filed 1983-01-20(b)(2)

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not prohibit the collection of alimony from property that is “not property of the estate” (11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)).

Section 362 does not stay Agricultural Labor Relations Board proceedings to determine unfair labor practices or establish the resulting employee back-pay claims.

Kawano, Inc. v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (In Re Kawano, Inc.) · filed 1983-02-25

I believe that the issue of whether the automatic stay prevents the ALRB from conducting either proceedings to determine whether an unlawful labor practice is being committed or to establish the claims of employees which were the subject of such unlawful labor practice has been squarely settled in this circuit by the cases of In re Adams Delivery Service, 24 B.R. 589 (9th Cir.Bkrtcy.App.1982) and In re Tucson Yellow Cab, 21 B.R. 166 (9th Cir.Bkrtcy.App.1982). The holding of those cases makes it clear that § 362 simply does not apply in these situations.

Section 362 stays further state tax administrative proceedings against a debtor after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Matter of LGJ Restaurant, Inc. · filed 1983-02-09(a)(1)

At this point 11 U.S.C. § 362 stayed any further administrative action.

Section 362(b)(6) permits the Civil Aeronautics Board to conduct administrative hearings despite the automatic stay.

Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (In Re Braniff Airways, Inc.) · filed 1983-05-12(b)(6)

It should be noted that § 362 does not prohibit the CAB from conducting hearings because of the exception contained in § 362(b)(6).

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a creditor from seeking criminal prosecution before discharge to collect a prepetition debt.

In Re Goodman · filed 1983-08-31(a)(6)

The defendant violated 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) and 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) respectively by knowingly requesting criminal prosecution before discharge and by causing the arrest of the debtor after discharge for the purpose of collecting two NSF checks, each in the amount of $700.00, covering a debt for past rent which was ultimately discharged in the pending bankruptcy.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings against a debtor absent proof that their purpose is to collect a debt.

Underwood v. DeLay (In Re DeLay) · filed 1984-06-18(b)(1)

Absent proof of such a purpose, § 362(b)(1) unambiguously permits the “commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.”

Section 362(b)(1) exempts the continuation of a criminal proceeding, including court approval of a restitution plan, from the automatic stay.

Black Hawk County v. Vik (In Re Vik) · filed 1984-11-02(b)(1)

Since court approval of the Debtor’s Plan of Restitution was merely a continuation of the criminal proceedings instituted against Debtor prior to his petition for relief under federal bankruptcy law, the June 28th order approving that plan was exempted from operation of the automatic stay provision.

Section 362 does not stay the commencement or continuation of a criminal action, including restitution imposed as a condition of probation.

State v. Eyre · filed 1984-12-11

Filing a bankruptcy petition does not operate as a stay where the commencement or continuation of a criminal action exists. 11 U.S.C. § 362. Restitution, as a condition of probation, is a part of the conviction's judgment and therefore a continuation of criminal action.

Section 362(b)(1) does not automatically stay a criminal proceeding against the debtor.

Brown v. Hampton (In Re Brown) · filed 1985-06-07(b)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362, by its own terms, does not act to stay a criminal proceeding.

Section 362’s automatic stay is violated when a state criminal prosecution is initiated for the purpose of collecting a debt.

St. Joseph Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Butler (In Re Butler) · filed 1985-11-04

To determine whether a state criminal prosecution may be set aside as a violation of the automatic stay of the federal bankruptcy laws, the court must inquire whether the state criminal action was initiated for the purpose of collecting the debt. If that was the case, the state criminal prosecution is violative of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a creditor to instigate and assist a criminal prosecution of a debtor even when the creditor is motivated to recover the debt.

Kavoosi v. Russell (In Re Kavoosi) · filed 1985-10-23(b)(1)

I assume in this case and in virtually every case, the creditor’s primary motivation in provoking and assisting a criminal prosecution of a debtor in bankruptcy is to recover some of his loss. For the reasons I have stated above, I am equally convinced that such conduct despite such motivation is not a violation of the § 362 stay.

Section 362(b) excludes the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against a debtor from the bankruptcy stay.

Smith v. Millsap · filed 1985-12-31(b)

The filing of bankruptcy proceedings does not operate to stay commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) does not automatically stay a criminal prosecution against a debtor, even when a creditor initiates it; a separate injunction may be warranted for bad faith.

Seidelman v. Texas District Attorney (In Re Seidelman) · filed 1986-01-15(b)(1)

The Bank was not per se prohibited from bringing criminal charges against the debtors during the pendency of the bankruptcy case by reason of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), because of the following exception set forth in § 362(b)(1): ... (1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor[.] ... However, the justification for enjoining the criminal prosecution at issue in this case is the Bank’s bad faith in commencing it and the enforcement of this Court’s jurisdiction in protecting discharged debtors from illegal harassment.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal contempt proceedings from the automatic stay when they seek to vindicate a court’s authority rather than enforce a creditor’s contract rights.

Titan Enterprises International, Ltd. v. Anoai (In Re Anoai) · filed 1986-06-12(b)(1)

I therefore conclude that the criminal contempt proceedings proposed by Titan are included within the scope of § 362(b)(1) and that the automatic stay does not apply to those proceedings.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings against a debtor despite the filing of a bankruptcy petition or a discharge.

State v. Muzio · filed 1987-01-13(b)(1)

A debtor’s filing of a petition for bankruptcy or obtaining of a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent the institution and prosecution of criminal proceedings against a debtor for criminal acts. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) (1978).

Section 362(b)(1) does not stay state criminal proceedings over insufficient-funds checks when the collection notices and criminal complaints preceded the bankruptcy petition.

Jeens of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Carvajal (In Re Jeens of Puerto Rico, Inc.) · filed 1987-01-22(b)(1)

Therefore, we find that defendants’ pre-pe-tition letters, and the state criminal proceedings filed thereafter, are not stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings against a debtor from the automatic stay.

Munroe v. Lasch · filed 1987-05-26(b)(1)

However, the commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings against a debtor is not subject to the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal actions, including prosecution for passing a bad check, from the automatic stay.

Gates v. Kovalik (In Re Gates) · filed 1987-06-22(b)(1)

Therefore, a criminal action against the Debtor for passing a bad check is not subject to the automatic stay provisions.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal proceedings from the automatic stay.

Centro de Transmisiones Automaticas de Puerto Nuevo, Inc. v. Borinquen Radio Distributors Inc. (In re Centro de Transmis · filed 1987-07-16(b)(1)

Criminal actions are not stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). See 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(a)(3) prohibits a state agency from terminating existing mortgage assistance benefits because the recipient filed for bankruptcy.

Watts v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Co. (In Re Watts) · filed 1987-06-30(a)(3)

The Debtors have appropriately agrued that the termination of their HEMAP benefits falls with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The Defendants’ actions were hence in violation of the automatic stay as well as § 525(a).

Section 362(a) stays proceedings in the High Court of American Samoa against a debtor whose bankruptcy case is before a court with jurisdiction.

Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc. v. S & S Contracting, Inc. · filed 1987-07-28(a)

Since Congress does have the power to bind the High Court of American Samoa, no such advantage need be afforded a creditor who sues an American bankrupt in American Samoa. Rather, the language and purpose of the statute prevail.

The automatic stay does not bar a criminal proceeding against a Chapter 11 debtor, including sentencing.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwain L. CADDELL, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1987-10-02(b)(1)

First, the ■ automatic stay in bankruptcy does not bar “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor....” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The district court’s authority to sentence Cad-dell was in no way hampered by his reorganization proceeding.

Section 362 excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, but a creditor may be enjoined from participating in a prosecution used to extract a preference over similarly situated creditors.

Bicro Corp. v. MacKes (In Re Bicro Corp.) · filed 1988-01-13(a)(6), (b)(1)

Congress by enacting § 362(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code sought to make it clear that the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding against a debtor was excepted from the operation of the automatic stay. ... As to the ability to issue a permanent injunction in this matter, the Court holds that a creditor (including agents and employees) may be permanently enjoined from any further participation in a criminal prosecution of a debtor when a creditor is seeking to utilize the criminal process as a means of exacting a preference not accorded to other creditors similarly situated.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal proceedings, including sentencing that imposes a fine, from the automatic stay.

Kohr v. Magisterial District 52-1-01 (In Re Kohr) · filed 1988-02-22(b)(1)

I think the debtors, by arguing that a fine is a money judgment protected by the stay because of § 362(b)(5), misconstrued the import of § 362(b)(1) which excluded criminal proceedings from the operation of the automatic stay. The sentencing of a defendant in a criminal case is an integral part of the criminal proceeding, whether it be imprisonment, a fine or restitution.

Section 362(b)(1) allows a probation revocation hearing based on unpaid criminal restitution and court costs to proceed despite the automatic stay.

Birk v. Simmons · filed 1988-07-26(b)(1)

In the case at bar, the holding of the probation revocation hearing constitutes the “continuation of a criminal action or proceeding.” The restitution obligation and court costs were assessed against the Debtor by the state criminal court as special conditions of probation. They are an integral part of the state court criminal process. Therefore, the automatic stay did not bar the probation revocation hearing.

Section 362(b)(1) allows a genuine criminal contempt prosecution to continue despite the automatic stay when it vindicates a state court’s authority rather than collects a debt.

Roussin v. Johnson (In Re Roussin) · filed 1988-08-25(b)(1)

Further, the Bankruptcy Code provides that the automatic stay does not operate as a stay— ... (1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor; ... 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(b)(1) and (4). ... This court has found that the proceeding in question is a true criminal proceeding and not an indirect effort to force a repayment of a dischargea-ble debt.

Section 362 stays a state motor vehicle agency’s collection of prepetition merit-rating surcharges during a Chapter 13 case.

Christensen v. New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles (In Re Christensen) · filed 1988-10-17(a)(6)

Instead the New Jersey Merit Rating Plan involves a statutory system of civil penalties, the collection of which by the DMV must abide the provisions of § 362.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, and a corporate debtor’s stay does not extend to proceedings against its nondebtor principal.

In Re INVESCO International Corp. · filed 1988-11-23(b)(1)

At the hearing, the Court questioned whether Buchta’s participation in the state court proceedings could be deemed to be a violation of the stay in light of the facts that Davis himself is not a debtor in a bankruptcy case, and that the automatic stay in effect as to the corporations in which Davis is a principal does not apply as to proceedings against Davis personally, unless Davis sought an injunction of such actions under § 105. Furthermore, the Court noted that criminal proceedings are excepted from the operation of the stay by § 362(b)(1). The Court therefore held that sanctions for violation of the stay would not be imposed in this case.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a genuine state criminal contempt proceeding from the automatic stay, even when the contempt arose from failure to comply with a debt collection order.

Roussin v. Johnson (In Re Roussin) · filed 1989-03-16(b)(1)

Excepted from such automatic stay is “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1); ... In short, the evidence is here ample for the bankruptcy court to have found (as it did) that the pending criminal proceedings comprised “a true criminal proceeding.”

Section 362(b)(1) exempts incarceration for failure to pay a criminal fine from the automatic stay when the incarceration continues the criminal proceeding.

Matter of Sims · filed 1989-06-01(b)(1)

Whether the County was imposing an alternative penalty, as the County contends, or attempting to collect its criminal fine, as Mr. Sims contends, the incarceration of Mr. Sims was the continuation of his arrest and conviction for violating WIS.STAT. § 346.04 (1987-88) — a criminal statute— and is excepted from the automatic stay under section 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay but does not bar a separate injunction under § 105.

Erickson v. District Court of the State of Colorado (In Re Erickson) · filed 1989-08-14(b)(1)

The exception under section 362(b)(1) is, however, only an exception to the “automatic” stay of section 362(a)(6), and does not foreclose the possibility of the entry of a separate injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a punitive contempt sanction from the automatic stay when the debtor’s opportunity to purge the contempt has expired.

Rook v. Rook (In Re Rook) · filed 1989-07-25(b)(1)

Even if we were to determine that the automatic stay applied, we would find that the contempt provisions of the 1989 order were exempt from the application of the automatic stay under § 362(b)(1). It *is clear from the terms of the 1989 order that the provision whereby the debtor could purge himself had long since ended and that the debtor no longer had the opportunity to do so, thus converting a contempt citation, civil and remedial in nature, into a citation criminal and punitive in nature.

Section 362(b)(1) does not require dismissal of a stay-violation complaint alleging that creditors initiated criminal proceedings to collect prepetition debt.

Brown v. Vali-Chek (In Re Brown) · filed 1989-10-10(b)(1)

The Court finds that, regardless of which approach it decides to follow, there are circumstances, under both approaches, which allow federal courts to override the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) exception to the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court finds, when viewing the allegations of the complaints in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, that the allegations are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a state prosecution under a quasi-criminal unemployment contribution statute to proceed despite the automatic stay.

Matter of Corbo · filed 1990-06-19(b)(1)

In conclusion, the Court finds that since N.J.Stat.Ann. 43:21-16(e) is a quasi-criminal statute, it falls within the meaning of “criminal action” as that term is used in § 362(b)(1). Therefore, the criminal prosecution of the Debtor can proceed in this case.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay but does not prevent a bankruptcy court from enjoining a criminal proceeding under § 105(a) when it is used to collect a potentially dischargeable debt.

Howard v. Allard · filed 1991-01-03(b)(1)

In other words, the exemption of criminal proceedings from the automatic stay does not limit bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction to prevent them from enjoining such proceedings under section 105(a).

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal contempt proceedings for violating a citation to discover assets from the automatic stay.

Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v. Drake International, Inc. · filed 1991-03-28(b)(1)

In this case, plaintiff sought a finding of contempt for defendant’s alleged violation of the citation to discover assets. Under Bank of Aspen, such a proceeding was for criminal contempt and, therefore, not subject to automatic stay when defendant filed for bankruptcy.

Section 362(b)(1) does not except probation revocation from the automatic stay when the only violation is a Chapter 13 debtor’s failure to pay restitution.

Hucke v. Oregon Ex Rel. Division of Corrections, Department of Human Resources (In Re Hucke) · filed 1991-05-07(b)(1)

In this court’s opinion, the subjective motive behind revoking the plaintiff’s probation is irrelevant. This court holds that where the state can point to no violation of the conditions of the probation sentencing order other than the failure to pay a restitution obligation after filing a petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, resentencing is prohibited by the automatic stay.

Section 362 bars a liquor board from considering unpaid prepetition taxes when it processes a debtor’s license renewal application, but does not require the court to compel renewal.

Roeder v. Hall (In re Skyline Properties, Inc.) · filed 1991-06-28(a)(1)

Thus, we cannot unilaterally compel the Board to renew the Licenses and will direct that the Trustee submit updated renewal applications which the Board shall process without consideration of the fact that pre-petition taxes remain unpaid.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts RICO criminal forfeiture from the automatic stay.

Sturg v. Smouha (In Re Smouha) · filed 1992-01-23(b)(1)

Because section 362(b)(1) would remove the RICO forfeiture from the ambit of the automatic stay provision, ... the TRO by its own terms precludes Sturge’s interpretation that it authorizes the injunctive relief that he seeks.

Section 362(b) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay even when they are brought to collect a debt; relief against misuse of criminal process requires a separate injunction.

In Re: Karen Joyce Sylvestre, Debtor. Karen Joyce Sylvestre v. Safeway, Incorporated · filed 1992-05-27(b)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy stays actions brought to recover a debt. However, § 362(b) specifically provides that the stay does not apply to "the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor." This case falls squarely within this exception. Nearly every court that has examined the scope of § 362(b) has concluded that"criminal action" includes all criminal actions. See, e.g., In re Alan I.W. Frank Corp. (Alan I.W. Frank Corp. v. P.M.A., Inc.), 19 B.R. 41, 42 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982). One court has held that criminal proceedings brought for the purpose of collecting a debt are automatically stayed. In re Padgett, 37 B.R. 280, 284-85 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983). However, we find the In re Padgett court's reasoning unpersuasive. Clearly the use of criminal process to collect debts may frustrate the purpose of the automatic stay. The remedy, however, lies in a separate injunction. Section 362(b) is unambiguous; it should be applied accordingly.

Section 362(b)(1) allows criminal proceedings, including worthless check prosecutions, to commence or continue despite the automatic stay.

Semones v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1992-06-02(b)(1)

However, plaintiff’s argument is without merit because the automatic stay of actions triggered by a bankruptcy does not operate against the commencement or continuation of criminal actions, such as worthless check prosecutions.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings, but a creditor may not use a prosecution to collect a prepetition claim despite the automatic stay.

Williamson-Blackmon v. Kimbrell's of Sanford, North Carolina, Inc. (In Re Williamson-Blackmon) · filed 1992-07-23(b)(1)

It is well established that a creditor is not permitted to utilize a criminal prosecution as a means of avoiding the automatic and injunctive stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code in an effort to continue to collect on a claim owed by the debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a criminal prosecution against the debtor from the automatic stay, including a bad-check prosecution.

In Re Asay · filed 1992-07-25(b)(1)

Rather than infringe on the province of the state courts, and in the interests of federalism and comity as set forth in Younger, 401 U.S. at 44, 91 S.Ct. at 750, 27 L.Ed.2d 669, this Court declines to exercise its equitable power under § 105(a) to enjoin this criminal prosecution, which was not stayed by the filing of the bankruptcy petition under § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, so their continuation does not support contempt for violating the stay absent an express order staying those proceedings.

In Re Smith · filed 1992-09-04(b)(1)

The statute specifically excepts criminal proceedings from the application of the automatic stay. Given that the language of the statute provides for commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings during the pendency of the bankruptcy, contempt should not issue absent an express order staying those particular criminal proceedings.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent GNMA from enforcing its contract rights against a defaulting mortgage-backed securities issuer under 12 U.S.C. § 1721(g).

In re Commonwealth Mortgage Co. · filed 1992-08-17

The Court finds that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not apply to the actions of GNMA as to its rights to enforce its contract with Debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt proceedings to collect criminal restitution or fines from the automatic stay, including arrest, hearings, or incarceration for failure to pay.

Washington v. Hale (In Re Washington) · filed 1992-10-09(b)(1)

The debtor is correct in his assertion that the automatic stay prohibits collection efforts by the City, including arrest for failure to pay the restitution or fine, setting any hearing regarding the failure to pay the fines, or incarcerating the debtor for failure to pay the restitution or fine.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a county attorney to process a criminal complaint, contact the debtor, and arrange repayment when those actions are reasonably related to the criminal proceeding.

Schake v. County of Buffalo (In Re Schake) · filed 1993-01-21(b)(1)

The case before the court involves the narrow issue whether the automatic stay of § 362 is violated by a county attorney acting upon a criminal complaint on a bad check. I conclude that the exception of § 362(b)(1) is applicable to permit the county attorney to proceed on the processing of a criminal complaint, to correspond with the drawer of the bad check and to enter an agreement requiring repayment.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a probation revocation from the automatic stay when it continues a criminal proceeding without seeking to collect a debt.

Hucke v. State of Oregon and Harl Haas · filed 1993-05-05(b)(1)

We conclude the resentencing was not a collection effort because (1) Hucke had no monetary obligation under the new judgment, and alternatively, (2) the resentencing was a proper effort on the part of Judge Haas to fashion a remedy that would serve the purposes of probation. Therefore, the revocation was a continuation of a criminal proceeding and not subject to the provisions of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) does not except criminal proceedings aimed at collecting a dischargeable debt or punishing failure to pay it from the automatic stay.

In Re Kilpatrick · filed 1993-05-03(b)(1)

Accordingly, it is clear that § 362(b)(1) applies only to criminal proceedings which do not have as their objective either the collection of a dischargeable debt or the imposition of sanctions for failure to pay such a debt.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a criminal prosecution for failure to provide child support from the automatic stay, even if the prosecution may have the practical effect of inducing support payments.

People v. Gruntz · filed 1994-10-19(b)(1)

Notwithstanding the practical effect that prosecution under this section may have, we find that the current proceeding was a criminal proceeding which falls within the exclusion of Bankruptcy Code section 362(b)(1). Therefore, the automatic stay did not protect appellant from the criminal prosecution.

Section 362(a) stays a state’s exercise of eminent domain against a debtor’s property.

Maryland v. Amoruso (In Re Quality Supplier General Partnership) · filed 1994-11-21(a)

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is applicable to enjoin the State’s exercise of its power of eminent domain as to property of the debtors.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal contempt proceedings against a debtor from the automatic stay.

In Re Allison · filed 1995-05-16(b)(1)

By virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1), the commencement or continuation of an action for criminal contempt is not stayed by the filing of a petition in bankruptcy.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a court to order restitution as part of a pending criminal proceeding despite the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

People v. Clouser · filed 1995-11-09(b)(1)

Inasmuch as County Court ordered restitution in connection with a criminal proceeding which was pending against defendant at the time of filing of his bankruptcy petition and in accordance with a plea agreement voluntarily entered into by him after the filing of said petition, defendant may not rely upon the automatic stay to nullify that portion of the judgment ordering restitution.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against a debtor from the automatic stay.

Jose v. Felix v. Goya Foods, Inc. · filed 1995-12-27(b)(1)

The bankruptcy code provides a statutory exception to Section 362(a)'s automatic stay for "the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor." 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1). Felix's allegation that Goya's criminal complaint flouted the automatic stay is therefore frivolous.

Section 362(b)(1) leaves a motion to punish a debtor for criminal contempt of a state court order outside the automatic stay.

In Re Newman · filed 1996-06-12(b)(1)

A motion to punish the debtor for criminal contempt for the violation of an order of the New York Supreme Court is properly made to that court and is not within the ambit of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts attorney fee sanctions imposed as part of a state criminal contempt proceeding from the automatic stay.

In Re Wrobel · filed 1996-06-12(b)(1)

Datlow’s attorneys’ fees were awarded as part of a State Court criminal contempt proceeding and, as such, are excepted from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts enforcement of a quasi-criminal statute from the automatic stay as the continuation of a criminal proceeding.

In Re Cuevas · filed 1997-02-25(b)(1)

A quasi-criminal statute falls within the meaning of “criminal action” as that term is used in § 362(b)(1), and its enforcement is therefore excepted from the imposition of the stay.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the continuation of criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, including proceedings to revoke a suspended criminal sentence even when they resemble civil debt collection.

Rollins v. Campbell (In Re Rollins) · filed 1997-04-02(b)(1)

After reviewing the authority presented to it, the court finds that construing the language of § 362(b)(1) by its plain meaning to include the continuation of all criminal matters rather than limiting it, as the bankruptcy court did in this case, to exclude criminal cases the nature of which are analogous to civil contempt, does not produce a result demonstrably at odds with congressional intent.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a university hearing to determine whether to terminate a medical intern when the university is gathering facts rather than collecting a debt.

In re Reyes · filed 1997-06-09(a)(1)

Having reviewed the pleadings before the Court, it is the conclusion of the Court that the proposed hearing is not the type of administrative hearing that Section 362(a)(1) was intended to regulate. The entire thrust of Section 362(a) is to stop all debt collection proceedings. Of primary importance to the Court’s decision is the fact that the University is not attempting to collect a debt. The University is simply gathering facts to enable it to determine whether the Debtor’s relationship with the University should be terminated.

The automatic stay does not bar a criminal prosecution, and a creditor’s response to a prosecutor’s request for evidence does not violate the stay.

Spectrum Paint Co. v. Chambers (In Re Chambers) · filed 1998-10-05(b)(1)

The Court further finds that the December 1997 letter was not an action by a creditor against the debtor but was a response to a request by the prosecutor for evidence. Moreover, Section 362(b) provides that the filing of a petition does not operate as a stay of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). The Court therefore concludes that Spectrum did not violate the automatic stay by its participation in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Chambers.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt a criminal prosecution from the automatic stay when its purpose is to collect a claim against the debtor.

Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz) · filed 1999-02-04(b)(1)

A criminal prosecution is not automatically excluded from the reach of the automatic stay. If the purpose of the prosecution is to “collect, as-sess or recover a claim” against a debtor in bankruptcy, the prosecution will violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a state’s request for an adjudication of guilt in a criminal proceeding from the automatic stay.

In re Wilson · filed 1999-04-20(b)(1)

Although this issue makes dischargeability a murky question, the fact that there was no previous sentence or conviction clarifies the application of section 362(b) governing exceptions to the automatic stay. The request for an adjudication of guilt appears to fall expressly within the terms of section 362(b) which excepts commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor from the application of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a municipal court to replace a traffic fine with incarceration or community service as punishment for a quasi-criminal motor vehicle offense.

In Re Perrin · filed 1999-04-22(b)(1)

We readily reaffirm our holding in Cue-vas that the quasi-criminal action of a municipal court in substituting incarceration, or community service in lieu of incarceration, for payment of a fine falls within the section 362(b)(1) “criminal action or proceeding” exception to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) does not except a criminal proceeding from the automatic stay when a creditor initiates it to collect a debt.

In Re Muncie · filed 1999-07-07(b)(1)

Because E-Z Cash Advance initiated the criminal proceeding for the purpose of collecting a debt, the exception from the automatic stay pertaining to the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtors does not apply.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a creditor’s mandatory suspicious activity report and cooperation in the resulting criminal prosecution from the automatic stay when they are not used to collect a prepetition debt.

Davis v. Illinois State Police Federal Credit Union (In Re Davis) · filed 2000-02-01(b)(1)

The Court finds that the filing of the SAR by the Credit Union and the testimony of the Credit Union’s employee, Jeffrey Smith, and its attorney, Maher, in the Debtor’s criminal trial in the District Court for the Central District of Illinois, falls within the exception to the automatic stay under § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) exempts state criminal proceedings from the automatic stay even when a complaining witness wants to collect a debt.

In Re Robert Gruntz, Debtor. Robert Gruntz v. Opinion County of Los Angeles Los Angeles District Attorney · filed 2000-02-03(b)(1)

In this case, the state court proceeded properly because the automatic stay does not apply to enjoin state criminal actions, even if the prosecution is motivated by the complaining witness’s desire to collect a debt.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts continuation of criminal proceedings, including probation revocation over unpaid restitution, from the automatic stay even when the proceedings seek to collect a claim.

Bryan v. Rainwater · filed 2000-01-11(b)(1)

The plain language and structure of the section in its entirety indicate that the continuation of a criminal proceeding is not subject to the automatic stay, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings might involve an attempt to collect, assess, or recover a claim.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a criminal prosecution from the automatic stay only until the criminal case is dismissed.

Gandara v. Bitterroot Rock Products (In Re Gandara) · filed 2000-10-03(b)(1)

However, when the criminal case against James was dismissed it ended, and the § 362(b)(1) exception to the automatic stay ceased to apply.

Section 362(a) does not bar a creditor from reporting a debtor’s alleged crime to law enforcement.

In Re Hartung · filed 2000-10-25(a)

The protections afforded by § 362(a) are not so broad as to forestall a creditor’s right to report a crime.

Section 362(b)(1) permits governmental prosecutors to initiate or continue criminal proceedings despite the automatic stay, even when their primary purpose is to collect a dischargeable debt.

In Re Byrd · filed 2000-11-16(b)(1)

The court concludes that governmental prosecutors may initiate and continue criminal prosecutions without violating the automatic stay even if, as in this case, the primary purpose of the prosecution is to collect a dischargeable debt.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt a creditor’s referral of bad checks to a prosecutor’s collection program when the referral threatens prosecution but does not commence a criminal proceeding.

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Baumblit · filed 2001-08-06(b)(1)

The BCU administers a program that attempts to collect payment of bad checks through the threat of prosecution. A different unit of the District Attorney’s Office must make a decision whether to prosecute and a separate criminal complaint must be drafted by the prosecutor if a decision is made to prosecute. Therefore, the referral to the BCU did not institute a criminal prosecution against Baumblit and it is undisputed that no decision to prosecute Baumblit was ever made.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal proceedings, including enforcement of orders to pay fines and restitution, from the automatic stay.

In Re Bibbs · filed 2002-08-19(b)(1)

For these reasons, the Debtor has failed to establish that any of the Defendants violated the provisions of the automatic stay because the stay, by its express terms, does not apply to criminal proceedings including the enforcement of orders to pay fines and restitution.

Section 362(b)(1) does not stay a probation violation hearing for unpaid restitution and fees when the debtor has not shown that its essential purpose is debt collection.

Coulter v. Aplin (In Re Coulter) · filed 2003-08-07(b)(1)

Under either of the approaches espoused by the Fourth Circuit, whether as a matter of statutory construction or because Debtor has not met his burden of showing that the essential purpose of the Probation Violation Hearing is a collection effort, this Court is not presently persuaded that the automatic stay precludes the holding of the Probation Violation Hearing in this case.

Section 362(b)(1) does not except a criminal proceeding from the automatic stay when it is initiated to collect a debt.

Dovell v. Guernsey Bank (In Re Dovell) · filed 2004-01-15(b)(1)

The exception to the automatic stay set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) is inapplicable where the criminal proceeding is initiated for the purpose of collecting a debt.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal bad-check prosecutions from the automatic stay even when restitution is their main objective.

Pickett v. Quinn (In Re Pickett) · filed 2005-01-25(b)(1)

The fact that restitution is one of the objectives of the state criminal proceeding, or even the main objective, does not warrant this Court’s interference with the criminal proceeding. ... The plain language of the statute is both unambiguous and unequivocal and excepts the application of the automatic stay to criminal proceedings. This Court finds the Bad Check Prosecutions to be criminal proceedings.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts a creditor’s report of a debtor’s bad check to a state prosecutor from the automatic stay as the commencement of a criminal proceeding.

Dennison v. Davis (In Re Dennison) · filed 2005-02-15(b)(1)

The court agrees with the Bergmanns’ argument that their contacting the States’ Attorney’s office concerning the debtor’s bad check was excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(b)(1) as the commencement of a criminal proceeding.

Section 362(b)(1) permits a creditor to report and assist with a debtor’s criminal violation when its primary motive is punishment rather than debt collection.

Batt v. American Rent-All (In Re Batt) · filed 2005-03-07(b)(1)

It follows then, that so long as the creditor’s primary motive is not the collection of a debt, but instead encompasses a true desire to see to it that the debtor is punished from violating the applicable criminal laws, no stay violation will exist for a creditor simply bringing the transgression to the attention and then cooperating with the person or agency charged with enforcing the criminal laws of the jurisdiction.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal actions or proceedings against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Gould v. Berger (In Re Gould) · filed 2006-02-07(b)(1)

Gould apparently believes that in the future Keystone might prosecute him in the New Jersey courts, but any such notion ignores that fact that prosecutorial authority is vested in the State of New Jersey and any such action would not be restrained by the automatic stay.

Section 362 bars a parking authority from selling estate property to collect prepetition parking fines because civil debt collection falls outside the criminal-proceeding exception and the police-power exception does not authorize such a sale.

In re Jester · filed 2006-04-12(a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(4)

The application of the most fundamental principle of bankruptcy law leads to the inescapable conclusion that PPA’s post-petition conduct in seizing and impounding the Vehicle and selling it to recover the costs of unpaid prepetition parking fines and storage costs violated the automatic stay of § 362(a). ... I find no merit to the first argument and while I agree that § 362(b)(4) allows PPA to take certain actions in furtherance of its police powers, it does not allow it to sell estate property to pay a prepetition debt.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts from the automatic stay the suspension of a debtor’s driver’s license for failure to pay criminal traffic fines as a continuation of a criminal proceeding.

Talley v. Alabama Department of Public Safety (In Re Talley) · filed 2006-07-27(b)(1)

Based on the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) and foregoing authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendants’ revocation of the Plaintiffs driver’s license for failure to pay fines was the continuation of a criminal proceeding and was not prohibited by the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a prosecutor’s bad-check prosecution from the automatic stay regardless of the prosecutor’s motive to collect a debt.

In Re Caravona · filed 2006-07-28(b)(1)

In light of the plain language and the legislative history, this court believes that the better view is that a prosecutor bringing a bad check prosecution against a debtor is exempt from the automatic stay regardless of the prosecutor’s motive in bringing the charges.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a driver's license suspension for failure to pay prepetition criminal traffic fines from the automatic stay as a continuation of criminal proceedings.

Talley v. Alabama Department of Public Safety · filed 2007-01-30(b)(1)

Both a plain reading of the statute and a review of the relevant case law indicate that the suspension of Talley’s license is precisely the type of conduct § 362(b)(1) excludes from bankruptcy protection.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, including an independently investigated and prosecuted case initiated by a creditor's report of suspected criminal activity.

Dovell v. the Guernsey Bank · filed 2007-08-14(b)(1)

Under these circumstances, the automatic stay set forth in § 362(a)(1) does not apply, since § 362(b)(1) excludes from the stay the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts a creditor’s initiation of a criminal proceeding unless the debtor proves that the creditor’s primary motive was debt collection.

Dorsey v. Prokos Check Cashing (In Re Dorsey) · filed 2007-08-06(b)(1)

If it was for collections, then the creditor’s conduct will be construed as an “act” to collect on a debt as proscribed by § 362(a). On the other hand, if the creditor’s primary motive was not to collect a debt, then the creditor’s actions will be viewed as falling within the scope of the criminal exception to the stay as found in § 362(b)(1). ... The burden falls upon the debtor to establish that the creditor’s primary motive for being involved in the criminal action was to collect on its debt.

Section 362(b)(1) permits collection of a traffic fine after a bankruptcy petition as a continuation of criminal proceedings excepted from the automatic stay.

Talley v. City of Moody · filed 2007-12-19(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court concluded the traffic fine was a continuation of criminal proceedings permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). The district court affirmed. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion of February 28, 2007.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes state criminal prosecutions for issuing bad checks from the automatic stay, even when the debtor alleges that their purpose is debt collection.

State v. McWilliams · filed 2008-02-20(b)(1)

In the case before us on appeal, the State points out, and we agree, that writing bad checks is a criminal offense and the action brought by the County Attorney was a criminal prosecution within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1), and is, as the Ninth Circuit held in Gruntz, an exception to the automatic stay. ... However, all of the cases McWilliams cites for this proposition predate the Ninth Circuit’s determination in Gruntz that the automatic stay does not apply to criminal proceedings even if the debtor asserts that the underlying purpose of the criminal proceedings is simple debt collection.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal proceedings from every part of the automatic stay, even when motivated by debt collection, brought in bad faith, or seeking restitution.

Bartel v. Walsh (In Re Bartel) · filed 2008-10-10(b)(1)

One acting within the scope of the criminal exception is not bound by any part of the stay. ... For all these reasons, this court construes subsection (b)(1) as admitting of no exceptions for prosecutorial purpose, bad faith, crimes of a financial nature, or punishments in the nature of restitution.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal contempt proceedings to uphold the court’s dignity and enforce its orders from the automatic stay.

Musilli v. Droomers (In Re Musilli) · filed 2008-11-25(b)(1)

Contempt proceedings to “uphold the dignity of the court” and enforce a court’s orders are not subject to the automatic stay provisions of § 362.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt a private creditor’s reporting of a crime to collect a dischargeable debt from the automatic stay.

Pearce v. E.L.W. Corp. (In Re Pearce) · filed 2009-01-27(b)(1)

Instead, the Court concludes that the acts of non-governmental individuals are not excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(1). ... This Court concludes that Herrig intended to collect the debt owing to Weber Concrete when he contacted the prosecutor and the police. Debtor has established that Herrig violated the automatic stay based on Herrig’s conduct and intent.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay even when they concern debt collection or alleged bad faith, including seizures of estate property undertaken in connection with a criminal prosecution.

Bartel v. Walsh (Bartel) · filed 2009-05-04(b)(1), (a)(3)

Thus, a criminal proceeding is not subject to the automatic stay, even where it relates to debt collection or where the debtor alleges that the state is proceeding in bad faith. ... Taken together, then, § 362(b)(1) and § 362(a)(3) plainly state that acts to obtain possession of property of the estate undertaken in connection with a criminal prosecution are not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt a civil contempt proceeding to collect a debt from the automatic stay.

Russell v. Caffey · filed 2010-06-23(b)(1)

Given the record, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the state court contempt action was civil in nature and thus subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the collection of a prison disciplinary penalty from the automatic stay when the penalty is a continuation of the debtor’s criminal conviction, even if it is unrelated to the initial offense.

In Re Reimann · filed 2010-09-27(b)(1)

I am satisfied the assessment made against the debtor in this case is a continuation of his criminal conviction, even though the penalty has nothing to do with the initial offense. The penalty under the Wisconsin Administrative Code is applicable only to prisoners, not the general public, and it was assessed while he was incarcerated for the initial offense. Therefore, it is a continuation of the government’s action associated with that initial offense and is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362 does not stay criminal forfeiture proceedings because they continue a criminal prosecution and enforce the government’s police and regulatory powers.

United States v. Erpenbeck · filed 2011-04-13

It is clear to the Court that the criminal forfeiture proceedings are exempted from the Bankruptcy Code’s stay provisions because they are part of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor, and/or fall within the government’s police and regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Berry v. State · filed 2012-05-09(b)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code expressly states that the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not stay commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts probation revocation proceedings from the automatic stay, including proceedings over failure to pay restitution imposed as a condition of probation.

United States v. Colasuonno · filed 2012-10-12(b)(1)

Probation revocation proceedings are continuations of the criminal action wherein the probationary sentence was initially imposed and, as such, are exempted from the operation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). No different conclusion obtains because the condition of probation at issue pertains to restitution and, thus, a defendant’s bankruptcy filing does not—effectively or otherwise—relieve that defendant of a probation condition to pay restitution.

Section 362(b)(1) allows a creditor to cooperate in a criminal investigation without violating the automatic stay.

Tow v. Henley (In re Henley) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(1)

Under § 362(b)(1), cooperating in a criminal investigation is not enough to violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings against the debtor personally, but collection or enforcement of criminal restitution against property of the bankruptcy estate remains stayed.

United States v. Robinson (In re Robinson) · filed 2012-11-21(b)(1)

As noted earlier, § 362(b)(1) does not expressly exclude from the automatic stay criminal actions or proceedings impacting property of the estate; but, based on the plain language reading of § 362(b)(1), criminal actions and proceedings against the debtor, in personam, may commence and continue to assure the penal and rehabilitative functions of those actions and proceedings are fostered. However, criminal actions and proceedings seeking to collect and enforce a judgment against property of the estate, obtaining possession of property of the estate, exercising control over property of the estate, or creating, perfecting, or enforcing any lien against property of the estate are temporarily stayed from continuing and commencing to assure that similarly situated creditors receive an equitable treatment/distribution from property of the estate and the bankruptcy trustees are afforded a reasonable period of time to investigate the financial affairs of the debtors and the priority and validity of asserted claims of creditors.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal charges concerning a prepetition insufficient funds check from the automatic stay.

Mickler v. Trujillo · filed 2013-01-22(b)(1)

While the criminal matter and alleged representation agreement and negligence occurred during the time period when Appellee was involved in bankruptcy proceedings, with attorneys who were representing the bankruptcy estate, those criminal charges concerned a pre-petition insufficient funds check and were exempt from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Vu v. Ankoanda (In re Ankoanda) · filed 2013-05-10(b)(1)

Further, the automatic stay does not apply to the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding against the debtor from the automatic stay and states no further conditions on that exception.

Legendary Stone Arts, LLC v. Maness · filed 2013-08-29(b)(1)

Further, criminal prosecution is clearly excepted from the automatic stay, and we note that the exception does not contain any further express exceptions or conditions.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding from the automatic stay.

Legendary Stone Arts, LLC v. Maness (In re Maness) · filed 2013-08-29(b)(1)

The applicable statute is clear — commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) allows criminal prosecutions to proceed despite a bankruptcy automatic stay.

People v. Riverhead Park Corp. · filed 2013-12-16(b)(1)

Similarly, the automatic stay that defendant obtained in the bankruptcy proceeding does not preclude the People from prosecuting these criminal actions against the corporate defendant (see 11 USC § 362 [b] [1]).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the nonmonetary parts of an Ohio probate concealment action from the automatic stay, but does not except entry of a monetary judgment against the debtor.

Stieg v. Hanson (In re Stieg) · filed 2014-03-28(b)(1)

For the foregoing reasons, all aspects of Hanson’s concealment action are excepted from the stay, pursuant to § 362(b)(1), except the entry of a monetary judgment.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts all criminal proceedings against a debtor from the automatic stay regardless of prosecutorial purpose or alleged bad faith.

In re Sori · filed 2014-07-29(b)(1)

The Court will apply the unambiguous language of the statute to except all criminal proceedings from the automatic stay regardless of the purpose for which the proceeding was brought.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal actions or proceedings against the debtor from the automatic stay, but does not permit the government to collect from property of the bankruptcy estate.

United States v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 2014-08-22(b)(1)

The plain language of § 362(b)(1), however, limits this exception to actions against the debtor. It does not enable the government to collect from property of the estate.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts actions taken to prosecute alleged crimes from the automatic stay.

Branch v. 30th District Court City of Highland Park (In re Branch) · filed 2015-02-06(b)(1)

Because the actions Defendant took post-petition of which Debtor complains were taken to prosecute crimes allegedly committed by Debtor, such post-petition actions and proceedings were criminal actions or proceedings within the meaning of § 362(b)(1), and were excepted from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, including a creditor’s participation in criminal charges against a person associated with the debtor.

Marable v. Sam Pack's Ford Country of Lewisville, Ltd. (In re Emergency Room Mobile Services, L.L.C.) · filed 2015-03-31(b)(1)

To the extent these “collection activities” refer to Pack Lewisville’s participation in the criminal theft of services proceedings against Marable, they do not violate the automatic stay that was in place in Debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts revocation of a criminal diversion agreement from the automatic stay even when the revocation is based on unpaid restitution.

In re Williams · filed 2015-04-01(b)(1)

The proceedings seeking to revoke Debtor’s diversion were part of the criminal proceedings against her and therefore within the § 362(b)(1) exception to the automatic stay. ... Contrary to Debtor’s position, the Court finds the fact that the revocation of the diversion was stated to be because of Debtor’s failure to pay restitution does not remove the District Attorney’s and the District Court’s actions from the stay exception.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, but a contempt sanction the debtor can purge by complying with a debtor examination is civil and exceeds stay relief limited to criminal contempt.

ALPER VS. DIST. CT. (PLISE) · filed 2015-06-25(b)(1)

The automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not stay "the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor." 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) (2012). In this writ proceeding, we must determine whether the subsequent district court order finding the judgment debtor in contempt but allowing him to avoid incarceration by participating in a debtor's examination exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court's lift stay order. We conclude that it did because a contempt order that permits a judgment debtor to purge incarceration is civil in nature.

Section 362(b)(1) does not exempt a creditor’s threat to pursue criminal charges to induce payment when the communication does not advance a criminal prosecution.

John Weary, Jr. v. Poteat · filed 2015-09-30(b)(1)

Yet, because the communications indisputably did not advance criminal prosecution and, therefore, do not come within the plain language of the exception; and because the communications were found to be a threat whose purpose was to induce payment, a finding of fact Weary has not directly challenged, they clearly ran afoul of the plain language of the automatic stay, prohibiting “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts legitimate criminal proceedings from the automatic stay regardless of a creditor’s motive for initiating them.

Stewart v. Hampton Co. National Surety, LLC (In re Stewart) · filed 2015-11-17(b)(1)

From the plain language of § 362(b)(1) and the interpretation provided by the circuit courts, it is not necessary to determine the motive behind criminal proceedings. The criminal action exception to the automatic stay should be applied according to its terms, which does not include a particular motive requirement.

Section 362(b)(1) allows criminal contempt proceedings to vindicate a court’s authority despite the automatic stay, while the stay prevents civil enforcement of a judgment debt.

McCarthy v. Ciano · filed 2015-12-09(b)(1)

In other words, the automatic stay prevents civil enforcement of the judgment debt, but does not prevent remedies for the injury to the power and dignity of the court.

Section 362(b)(1) permits authorities to commence or continue criminal prosecutions despite a bankruptcy filing.

Perry Petroleum Equipment Ltd. v. Pennsylvania (In re Perry Petroleum Equipment Ltd.) · filed 2017-01-12(b)(1)

When Congress drafted the automatic stay exemption of § 362(b)(1), it intended to permit authorities to both continue the prosecution of criminal actions and to commence such actions.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts state criminal prosecutions from the automatic stay despite the defendant’s bankruptcy filing.

Gatheright v. Clark · filed 2017-02-23(b)(1)

The mere fact that Gatheright had filed for bankruptcy does not preclude the institution of state criminal proceedings against him, as criminal prosecutions are exempt from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1), as incorporated into PROMESA Title III, does not stay habeas corpus petitions.

Atiles-Gabriel v. Rico · filed 2017-06-23(a)(1)

The principle of constitutional avoidance counsels that a ha-beas petition must fall outside the limits of section 362(a)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings against a debtor from the automatic stay, but suspicion of criminal conduct alone does not bring a bank’s account hold within the exception.

Chau v. Capital One, N.A. (In re Chau) · filed 2017-11-22(b)(1)

Section 362(b)(1) excepts from the stay criminal proceedings against the debtor. ... Thus, the fact that Capital One might have suspected Chau of criminal conduct was insufficient for purposes of excepting its action from the province of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts state criminal prosecutions from the automatic stay triggered by a bankruptcy filing.

State v. Duffy · filed 2018-01-10(b)(1)

The fact that defendant's debt has been discharged in bankruptcy proceedings does not preclude the institution of state criminal proceedings against him, as criminal prosecutions are exempt from the automatic stay imposed upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(b)(1) excepts the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Steve Shickles, Jr. · filed 2019-12-20(b)(1)

The criminal proceeding is excepted from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) does not protect a creditor who instigates a criminal proceeding against a debtor primarily to recover a dischargeable debt.

Lori Jayne Kimbler · filed 2020-07-15(b)(1)

This court holds, however, that the exception provided by § 362(b)(1) does not permit a creditor to instigate a criminal proceeding against a debtor if the primary purpose is to recover a dischargeable debt.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal proceedings from the automatic stay.

Robert L Higgins · filed 2024-01-25(b)(1)

The Delaware Criminal Action is not stayed under the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement of criminal proceedings from the automatic stay, even when the proceedings concern an alleged unpaid debt.

REARDON v. BACHELDER · filed 2025-08-14(b)(1)

Because the commencement of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff based on an alleged unpaid debt is not subject to the automatic stay and because Plaintiff has alleged no other facts that would support a claim for false arrest, Plaintiff’s false arrest claim and his separate claim for the violation of the automatic stay must fail.

Section 362(b)(1)’s criminal proceeding exception cannot be established on summary judgment when material factual disputes leave the civil or criminal nature of contempt sanctions unresolved.

Booker · filed 2026-03-06(b)(1)

Given all of these circumstances, the Court concludes that material issues of fact exist as whether the sanctions were in the nature of criminal contempt and the Court cannot, as a matter of law, determine that the § 362(b)(1) exception is applicable.

The automatic stay does not stop the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding against the debtor.

Bray v. Holley (In Re Bray) · filed 1981-06-24(b)(1)

Under the Bankruptcy Code of 1978, Section 362(b) (11 U.S.C. § 362) the automatic stay does not stop the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the Debtor.

Section 362(b)(1) generally permits criminal proceedings to continue despite bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy court may enjoin a prosecution principally intended to recover a dischargeable debt.

Kaping v. Oregon (In Re Kaping) · filed 1981-08-05(b)(1)

On the other hand, the bankruptcy court does not generally issue orders which would interfere with the enforcement of the criminal law. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). ... However, if it appears that the principal motivation is not punishment or prevention but to recover a dischargeable debt either by a negotiated compromise of the criminal charge or by obtaining of an order of restitution after conviction, the bankruptcy court may enjoin criminal prosecution.

Section 362(b) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from using § 105(a) to stay a creditor’s criminal prosecution that would collect a dischargeable debt.

Strassmann v. Du-Art Foods, Inc. (In Re Strassmann) · filed 1982-03-16(b)

The use of § 105(a) to extend the reach of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 was expressly sanctioned by the drafters. ... We recognize that defendant was not attempting to fit through a perceived loophole in the automatic stay at § 362(b) at the time that the prosecution was initiated. Nonetheless, the effect of allowing the criminal process to take its course would be to frustrate this Court’s mandate to relieve debtors from the burden of dischargeable debts and to accord equal treatment to creditors within each category. ... For these reasons, we find that plaintiff’s debt is dischargeable and we permanently enjoin and stay the defendant from continuing or commencing criminal proceedings against the plaintiff on the debt and check discussed in this opinion.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Salecki v. Virginia (In Re Salecki) · filed 1985-07-11(b)(1)

The operation of the stay created by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy is subject to the exclusions contained in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b), which excludes inter alia, “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) permits a state criminal prosecution motivated by enforcement of public welfare to proceed despite the automatic stay.

Lare v. Norton (In Re Lare) · filed 1982-08-30(b)(1)

Under the circumstances as they now exist, this Court declines to extend the Taylor doctrine to the instant controversy, where it appears that the State’s motivation in prosecuting the debtor is the enforcement of its police and regulatory powers and the legitimate vindication of the public welfare.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings to begin or continue despite a bankruptcy filing.

In Re Duque · filed 1984-11-20(b)(1)

Indeed, since section 362(b)(1) specifically permits criminal proceedings notwithstanding filing of bankruptcy, it is difficult to perceive how the bankruptcy estate would be affected by the criminal process, at least as a general proposition and absent unusual circumstances where estate property may be at stake.

Section 362(b)(1) excludes criminal proceedings against a debtor from the automatic stay, including the continuation of a pending prosecution.

Walsh v. Abrams (In Re HBG Servicenter, Inc.) · filed 1985-01-11(b)(1)

Turning now to the merits of the debtors’ application for injunctive relief, the debtors evidently recognize that the pending state court proceedings are not automatically stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. Section 362(b) exempts from the automatic stay imposed by Section 362(a) “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.”

Section 362(b)(1) permits a criminal proceeding against a debtor to continue after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Nashawaty v. Massachusetts (In Re Nashawaty) · filed 1990-09-28(b)(1)

Section 362(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the filing of a petition does not operate as a stay “of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor....” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).

Section 362(b)(1) excludes the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against a debtor from the automatic stay.

Parish v. State · filed 1986-02-24(b)(1)

Further, the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USC § 362 (b) provides: “The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title does not operate as a stay — (1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.”

Section 362(b)(1) does not stay a criminal prosecution pursued to protect the public welfare despite the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Richardello v. Garrick (In Re Richardello) · filed 1983-03-23(b)(1)

On the other hand, where a criminal proceeding is instituted to further a public policy and thereby protect the public welfare, this Court, as do other courts, believes that the action should and must continue, regardless of the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a) stays a criminal proceeding pursued to collect a debt from the debtor.

Padgett v. Latham (In Re Padgett) · filed 1983-10-28(a)

In accordance herewith, this Court finds that irreparable injury to Mrs. Padgett will result if defendants are not enjoined from pursuing the debt collection attempt in state court. Such collection efforts stand in violation of federal bankruptcy provisions, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), § 524(a)(2), and must be enjoined.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor from the automatic stay.

Cornell v. Director, Office of Adult Probation (In Re Cornell) · filed 1985-03-06(b)(1)

By its express terms, Code § 362(b)(1) exempts the operation of the automatic stay from “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.”

Section 362(b)(1) permits a criminal probation revocation proceeding to continue despite the automatic stay, even when revocation is sought for nonpayment of a fine and court costs.

Gilliam v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (In Re Gilliam) · filed 1986-10-31(b)(1)

The district attorney’s action to revoke the debtor’s probation constitutes the “continuation of a criminal action or proceeding” and is unaffected by the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay prohibits a creditor from seeking a criminal indictment to pressure a debtor into paying a debt.

Brown v. Foley (In Re Brown) · filed 1997-09-26

Rather than recognize the stay and accept the loss, Foley elected to pursue an indictment designed to humiliate and embarrass Brown into paying the money.

Section 362 excepts criminal proceedings and governmental enforcement of police or regulatory powers from the automatic stay.

In Re Vines · filed 1998-07-21(b)(1), (b)(4)

Here the injunction of the automatic stay is specifically excluded as to state criminal proceedings.

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal prosecutions from the automatic stay, even when a prosecution may serve to collect a debt.

In Re Simonini · filed 2002-08-08(b)(1)

The Court finds no reason to construe the language of 362(b) in any manner other than as it is expressed on its face, and the clear intent is that no action termed a criminal prosecution is automatically stayed.

Section 362(b)(1) permits criminal proceedings to continue despite the automatic stay, including enforcement of unpaid traffic fines through a driver’s license suspension.

Talley v. Alabama Department of Public Safety (In Re Tally) · filed 2007-12-19(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court concluded the traffic fine was a continuation of criminal proceedings permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). The district court affirmed. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion of January 29, 2007.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against a bankruptcy debtor but excepts criminal prosecutions and governmental proceedings enforcing police or regulatory powers.

Griggs v. City of Gadsden Revenue · filed 2009-06-05(a), (b)

In order for the Barnette rule to apply, Griggs must present evidence that Defendants invoked the criminal process in bad faith in order to collect a debt which would otherwise have been discharged in bankruptcy. In other words, Griggs must show that Defendants criminally charged her with operating a business without a license in order to frustrate the bankruptcy judge’s jurisdiction to discharge her debts. Nothing suggests that Defendants could have recovered any discharged debt as a part of their prosecution of Griggs. The Municipal Court imposed a $500 fine against Griggs for each of the four charges, but, as the Barnette court noted, a bankruptcy court has “no conceivable interest” in any “possible fine [or] imprisonment” which a criminal proceeding may impose. Id. at 1253. Accordingly, because the criminal proceeding at issue could not have been a subterfuge for the collection of a debt, the district court correctly found that the commencement of this proceeding did not violate the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

A claim for damages under § 362(k) for violating the automatic stay is remedial and survives the defendant’s death.

Butler v. Anderson (In Re C.R. Stone Concrete Contractors, Inc.) · filed 2011-12-19(k)

Section 362(k) “specifically and proportionately redresses personal injuries resulting from violations of the automatic stay” and is thus remedial. ... Accordingly, I find that Count XIV also survived Anderson’s death.

A lack of continuing harm does not defeat liability for an injury caused by a violation of the automatic stay.

In Re Russell · filed 2011-02-04(k)(1)

To the contrary, it is the legal conclusion of this Court that one cannot defend against liability for a stay violation by claiming a lack of continuing harm.

Section 362(h) does not allow damages for a creditor’s negligent failure to stop collection process when the creditor knew of the bankruptcy but had forgotten that the process was pending.

Atkins v. Martinez (In Re Atkins) · filed 1994-11-04(h)

Having merely forgotten that his clients had a form of process outstanding against the Debtor, Martinez did not willfully proceed to violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(h) does not authorize sanctions for a corporate debtor injured by a violation of the automatic stay.

In Re Cascade Roads, Inc., Debtor. United States of America v. Peter H. Arkison, Trustee · filed 1994-08-22(h)

However, because section 362(h) does not authorize an award of sanctions to a corporate debtor, the bankruptcy court did err by sanctioning the United States for violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1), (2), and (6) bars a creditor from completing a prepetition eviction after the petition is filed by removing the debtor’s personal property to enforce a prepetition claim for possession.

In Re Sumpter · filed 1994-08-22(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6)

The post-petition removal of and damage to the Debtor’s personal property was a violation of sections 362(a)(1), (2) and (6) because the Creditors were acting to enforce their pre-petition claim of a declared forfeiture of the Agreement and recover full possession of the Real Property, which included the front yard.