ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 515
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 515/4 (2026)

(a) Violation of paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 3 of this Act shall be a Class 4 felony when the amount of the contract or agreement is more than $1,000, a Class A misdemeanor when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less, and a Class 4 felony for the second or subsequent offense when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 515/4) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1604)
    Sec. 4. (a) Violation of paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 3 of this Act shall be a Class 4 felony when the amount of the contract or agreement is more than $1,000, a Class A misdemeanor when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less, and a Class 4 felony for the second or subsequent offense when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less. If 2 or more contracts or agreements for home repair exceed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or more and such contracts or agreements are entered into with the same victim by one or more of the defendants as part of or in furtherance of a common fraudulent scheme, design or intention, the violation shall be a Class 4 felony.
    (b) Violation of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 3 of this Act shall be a Class 3 felony when the amount of the contract or agreement is more than $10,000 and a Class 4 felony when the amount of the contract or agreement is $10,000 or less.
    (c) Violation of paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Section 3 of this Act shall be a Class 4 felony when the amount of the contract or agreement is more than $1,000, a Class A misdemeanor when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less, and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense when the amount of the contract or agreement is $1,000 or less. If 2 or more contracts or agreements for home repair exceed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or more and such contracts or agreements are entered into with the same victim by one or more of the defendants as part of or in furtherance of a common fraudulent scheme, design or intention, the violation shall be a Class 4 felony.
    (d) Violation of paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of Section 3 of this Act shall be a Class 4 felony.
(Source: P.A. 84-1270.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “1972))); Second-Hand Watch Act (815 ILCS 410/5 (West 2006)); Transportation Ticket Fraud Act (815 ILCS 415/3 (West 2006)); Travel Promotion Consumer Protection Act (815 ILCS 420/7 (West 2006)); Used Lubricant Act (815 ILCS 435/2 (West 2006)); Home Repair Fraud Act (815 ILCS…”
People v. Davis, 819 N.E.2d 1195 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “In that case, the defendant was charged and convicted of theft, a Class 3 felony (see 720 ILCS 5/16 — 1(b)(4) (West 2000)), and home repair fraud, a Class 4 felony (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) (West 2000)). The indictment for home repair fraud alleged that the defendant “ ‘knowingly…”
People v. Flynn, 792 N.E.2d 527 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Defendant’s indictment for home repair fraud alleges that he “knowingly entered into a contract for home repair with Timothy Howard and used deception to induce such person to enter into that contract.”
Smith v. Resipro, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025). “See 815 ILCS 515/4(b). It thus cannot be said to be like statutes with penalties “so minor that they provided no incentive for compliance.”
People v. Flynn (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Here, defendant was charged with a Class 3 felony (theft) (see 720 ILCS 5/16--1(b)(4) ( West 2000 )) and a Class 4 felony (home repair fraud) (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) ( West 2000 )). Defendant's indictment for home repair fraud alleges that he "knowingly entered into a contract…”
Fandel v. Allen (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “1972))); Second-Hand Watch Act (815 ILCS 410/5 (West 2006)); Transportation Ticket Fraud Act (815 ILCS 415/3 (West 2006)); Travel Promotion Consumer Protection Act (815 ILCS 420/7 (West 2006)); Used Lubricant Act (815 ILCS 435/2 (West 2006)); Home Repair Fraud Act (815 ILCS…”
People v. Davis (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “In that case, the defendant was charged and convicted of theft, a Class 3 felony (see 720 ILCS 5/16--1(b)(4) (West 2000)), and home repair fraud, a Class 4 felony (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) (West 2000)). The indictment for home repair fraud alleged that the defendant " 'knowingly…”
— 815 ILCS 515/4(a) — 4 cases
People v. Davis, 819 N.E.2d 1195 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “In that case, the defendant was charged and convicted of theft, a Class 3 felony (see 720 ILCS 5/16 — 1(b)(4) (West 2000)), and home repair fraud, a Class 4 felony (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) (West 2000)). The indictment for home repair fraud alleged that the defendant “ ‘knowingly…”
People v. Flynn, 792 N.E.2d 527 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Defendant’s indictment for home repair fraud alleges that he “knowingly entered into a contract for home repair with Timothy Howard and used deception to induce such person to enter into that contract.”
People v. Flynn (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Here, defendant was charged with a Class 3 felony (theft) (see 720 ILCS 5/16--1(b)(4) ( West 2000 )) and a Class 4 felony (home repair fraud) (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) ( West 2000 )). Defendant's indictment for home repair fraud alleges that he "knowingly entered into a contract…”
People v. Davis (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “In that case, the defendant was charged and convicted of theft, a Class 3 felony (see 720 ILCS 5/16--1(b)(4) (West 2000)), and home repair fraud, a Class 4 felony (see 815 ILCS 515/4(a) (West 2000)). The indictment for home repair fraud alleged that the defendant " 'knowingly…”
— 815 ILCS 515/4(b) — 1 case
Smith v. Resipro, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025). “See 815 ILCS 515/4(b). It thus cannot be said to be like statutes with penalties “so minor that they provided no incentive for compliance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.