SJC Upholds Pension Forfeiture for Fraudulent Overtime Scheme

On August 7, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the mandatory forfeiture of a former state trooper’s pension following his federal conviction for embezzlement. Raftery v. State Board of Retirement clarifies how Massachusetts courts will analyze pension forfeiture matters under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.   

Gregory Raftery retired from the Massachusetts State Police in 2018 after nearly 22 years of service. Four months after retiring, he pled guilty in federal court to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(1)(A), for falsely reporting overtime and falsifying motor vehicle citations.  

The State Board of Retirement found that G.L. c.32, §15(4) required Raftery to forfeit his pension following the conviction of a criminal offense involving a violation of the laws applicable to his public position.  Raftery challenged the forfeiture as an “excessive fine” and as “cruel and unusual punishment” under Article 26.  The District Court upheld the retirement board’s decision in April 2024. The SJC held that the forfeiture was not an excessive fine and that his argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment was meritless.   

The SJC adopted the multifactor excessive fines analysis under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution described in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).  The touchstone of the inquiry in Bajakajian was the principal of proportionality; that is, the amount of the forfeiture must bear relationship to the gravity of the offense it is designed to punish and cannot be grossly disproportional to the gravity of that offense.  Applying this test to Raftery’s conduct, the SJC considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, whether it was related to other illegal conduct, the harm caused by the offense, and the maximum sentence that could have been imposed.    

The SJC noted that Raftery engaged in prolonged fraud over the course of years which constituted a significant breach of public trust and deprivation of police services to the public.  To forfeit only to the actual amount of overtime pay illegally obtained by Raftery would devalue the true gravity of his offense, particularly since the maximum potential sentence of the federal charge that Raftery pled guilty to was significant (10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine).   The SJC held that the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate” and thus, did not violate Article 26’s excessive fine provision.  It also distinguished Raftery’s conduct from that of the retiree in Public Employee Retirement Admin. Comm’n v. Bettencourt, 474 Mass. 60 (2016) where the SJC held that Bettencourt could keep his pension despite being convicted of 21 misdemeanor counts of unauthorized use of a computer system.  The SJC found that stripping Bettencourt of his entire pension was not proportional to the gravity of the underlying offense because it related to one instance of snooping on colleagues’ civil service scores, his actions resulted in no personal gain, and the maximum sentence of the underlying crime was thirty days’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The SJC also held that even if Article 26’s “cruel or unusual punishment” clause applied, the high threshold for such a finding was not met because the forfeiture was not disproportionate to the underlying crime.  

The Raftery decision reaffirms pension forfeiture as a powerful deterrent against corruption and misconduct in public positions.