Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2310 (2026)

Fraudulent schemes and artifices; classification; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony.

B. Reliance on the part of any person shall not be a necessary element of the offense described in subsection A of this section.

C. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section that involved a benefit with a value of one hundred thousand dollars or more or the manufacture, sale or marketing of opioids is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

D. This state shall apply the aggregation prescribed by section 13-1801, subsection B to violations of this section in determining the applicable punishment.

E. For the purposes of this section, "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive a person of the intangible right of honest services.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Henry, 68 P.3d 455 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Henry, 68 P.3d 455 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 32× “¶ 13 Henry argues no substantial evidence supports the conviction because sexual gratification does not qualify as a requisite “benefit” under § 13-2310, contrary to the state’s *233 argument to the jury.”

State v. Bridgeforth, 750 P.2d 3 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 24× “Defendant, Richard Wayne Bridgeforth, was convicted of nine counts of violating A.R.S. § 13-2310, scheme or artifice to defraud.”

State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 24× “section 13-2310 (fraudulent schemes or artifices); one count of violating A.”

State v. Suarez, 670 P.2d 1192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 16× “Following a trial by jury, appellant was convicted of one count of fraudulent scheme and artifice in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2310. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for a term of five years, and as conditions of probation,…”

State v. Via, 704 P.2d 238 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 6× “§ 13-1802; and two counts of fraudulent schemes and artifices, A.R.S. § 13-2310. The trial court entered a judgment of guilty on all charges and defendant was sentenced as follows: life imprisonment without possibility of parole or release for twenty-five years on the murder…”

Ness v. W. Sec. Life Ins., 851 P.2d 122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-2310 sets forth those elements as follows: A.”

State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “” To convict a defendant of a fraudulent scheme or artifice pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2310, the state must prove, inter alia, that the defendant obtained a benefit “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions.”

State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “§ 13-2301(D)(4)(b)(iv), and, once again, a scheme or artifice to defraud, but this time under A.R.S. § 13-2310 (2010). See supra note 16.”

State v. Proctor, 2 P.3d 647 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “Constitutionality of Fraudulent Scheme and Artifice Statute ¶ 11 Appellants contend that the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute, A.R.S. § 13-2310, is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and internally inconsistent and that the trial court erred in denying their motions for…”

Rhue v. Dawson, 841 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “) § 13-2310 [1] which prohibits fraudulent schemes and artifices.”

State v. Hansen, 160 P.3d 166 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶2 After being convicted of fraudulent schemes and artifices in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2310 (2001), and theft of $25,000 or more in violation of A.”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2310(A) — 41 cases

State v. Henry, 68 P.3d 455 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 13 Henry argues no substantial evidence supports the conviction because sexual gratification does not qualify as a requisite “benefit” under § 13-2310, contrary to the state’s *233 argument to the jury.”

State v. Suarez, 670 P.2d 1192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “Following a trial by jury, appellant was convicted of one count of fraudulent scheme and artifice in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2310. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for a term of five years, and as conditions of probation,…”

State v. Johnson, 880 P.2d 132 (Ariz. 1994).

Rhue v. Dawson, 841 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “) § 13-2310 [1] which prohibits fraudulent schemes and artifices.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2310(B) — 3 cases

Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004).

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson, 773 P.2d 490 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

State v. Clements (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2310(C) — 4 cases

State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).

Navajo Nation v. MacDonald, 885 P.2d 1104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Viliborghi (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

State v. Mullet (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2310(E) — 1 case

United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003).

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.