A. A person commits fraudulent use of a credit card if the person:
1. With intent to defraud, uses, for the purposes of obtaining or attempting to obtain money, goods, services or any other thing of value, a credit card or credit card number obtained or retained in violation of this chapter or a credit card or credit card number which the person knows is forged, expired, cancelled or revoked; or
2. Obtains or attempts to obtain money, goods, services or any other thing of value by representing, without the consent of the cardholder, that the person is the holder to a specified card or by representing that the person is the holder of a credit card and the card has not in fact been issued.
B. Fraudulent use of a credit card is a class 1 misdemeanor. If the value of all money, goods, services and other things of value obtained or attempted to be obtained in violation of this section is two hundred fifty dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars in any consecutive six-month period the offense is a class 6 felony. If the value of all money, goods, services and other things of value obtained or attempted to be obtained in violation of this section is one thousand dollars or more in any consecutive six-month period the offense is a class 5 felony.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez, 307 P.3d 51 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” He maintains that even assuming, as the state asserted in its answering brief, the credit card company was the victim, there was no evidence Borquez had made a material misrepresentation to the company, and that it had relied on that misrepresentation.”
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “¶ 10 At oral argument, Fimbres also emphasized that his conduct was covered by A.R.S. § 13-2105, fraudulent use of a credit card, a misdemeanor or a class five or six felony, and argued that the legislature therefore intended that he be prosecuted and punished under this more…”
State v. Forrester, 657 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “With respect to his conviction for twenty-two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, A.R.S. § 13-2105, Forrester contends that the trial judge’s instruction to the jury created a mandatory presumption in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the…”
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 618 P.2d 1078 (Ariz. 1980).
“This list includes crimes which range from those involving moral opprobrium such as fraudulent use of a credit card, § 13-2105, to regulatory offenses such as a citrus fruit standardization violation, § 3-466.”
State v. Jernigan, 209 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “It is the defendant’s exercise of exclusive possession of the credit card, to the exclusion of the true owner, which is critical. ¶ 14 The second reason we reject Jerni-gan’s argument is that his suggested interpretation of the offense of theft of a credit card would often be…”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “¶10 At oral argument, Fimbres also emphasized that his conduct was covered by A.R.S. § 13-2105, fraudulent use of a credit card, a misdemeanor or a class five or six felony, and argued that the legislature therefore intended that he be prosecuted and punished under this more…”
State v. Selby (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“”) Section 13-2105(A)(1). The superior court gave Selby credit for time served and sentenced him to three years’ supervised probation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2105(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Jernigan, 209 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“It is the defendant’s exercise of exclusive possession of the credit card, to the exclusion of the true owner, which is critical. ¶ 14 The second reason we reject Jerni-gan’s argument is that his suggested interpretation of the offense of theft of a credit card would often be…”
State v. Selby (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“”) Section 13-2105(A)(1). The superior court gave Selby credit for time served and sentenced him to three years’ supervised probation.”
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.