Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 4-2-6-12 (2026)

Violations; penalties; sanctions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 12. If the commission finds a violation of this chapter, IC 4-2-7, or IC 4-2-8, or a rule adopted under this chapter IC 4-2-7, or IC 4-2-8, in a proceeding under section 4 of this chapter, the commission may take any of the following actions:

(1) Impose a civil penalty upon a respondent not to exceed three (3) times the value of any benefit received from the violation.

(2) Cancel a contract.

(3) Bar a person from entering into a contract with an agency or a state officer for a period specified by the commission.

(4) Order restitution or disgorgement.

(5) Reprimand, suspend, or terminate an employee or a special state appointee.

(6) Reprimand or recommend the impeachment of a state officer.

(7) Bar a person from future state employment as an employee or future appointment as a special state appointee.

(8) Revoke a license or permit issued by an agency.

(9) Bar a person from obtaining a license or permit issued by an agency.

(10) Revoke the registration of a person registered as a lobbyist under IC 4-2-8.

(11) Bar a person from future lobbying activity with a state officer or agency.

As added by P.L.9-1990, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.15-1992, SEC.7; P.L.222-2005, SEC.11; P.L.89-2006, SEC.12.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2014 · leading case: Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, Off. of Inspector Gen., & David Thomas, in his Off. Capacity as Inspector Gen. v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, Off. of Inspector Gen., & David Thomas, in his Off. Capacity as Inspector Gen. v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014). · cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 4-2-6-12(7) (2012). The Commission concluded Sanchez “violated 42 IAC 1-5-12 when she removed state property in the form of a television, luggage cart, label maker, and Blackberry cable from DWD premises for personal use” and barred her from future state employment.”

Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, 911 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “See Ind.Code §§ 4-2-6-12 and - 15-2-34. As part of the administrative appeals process, first the Ethics Commission (through a motion for reconsideration), and then, critically, the Appeals Commission reviews the propriety of such dismissals.”

LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000). “§ 4-2-6-12. It is clear that the express language of the Ethics Code does not authorize the dismissal of an IOSHA safety order as a sanction for a violation of the Ethics Code.”

Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, 930 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “" I.C. § 4-2-6-12(1). Ghosh's travels in a state vehicle to Beech Grove were a benefit to him and the LR.”

Indiana State Ethics Comm'n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “Ind.Code 4-2-6-12. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Nelson and Royer reaped well in excess of $30,000.”

— Ind. Code § 4-2-6-12(1) — 2 cases

Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, 911 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind.Code §§ 4-2-6-12 and - 15-2-34. As part of the administrative appeals process, first the Ethics Commission (through a motion for reconsideration), and then, critically, the Appeals Commission reviews the propriety of such dismissals.”

Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, 930 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2010). “" I.C. § 4-2-6-12(1). Ghosh's travels in a state vehicle to Beech Grove were a benefit to him and the LR.”

— Ind. Code § 4-2-6-12(7) — 1 case

Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, Off. of Inspector Gen., & David Thomas, in his Off. Capacity as Inspector Gen. v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014). “” Ind.Code § 4-2-6-12(7) (2012). The Commission concluded Sanchez “violated 42 IAC 1-5-12 when she removed state property in the form of a television, luggage cart, label maker, and Blackberry cable from DWD premises for personal use” and barred her from future state employment.”

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.