(a)Every person who possesses an incomplete access card, with intent to complete it without the consent of the issuer, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b)Every person who, with the intent to defraud, makes, alters, varies, changes, or modifies access card account information on any part of an access card, including information encoded in a magnetic stripe or other medium on the
access card not directly readable by the human eye, or who authorizes or consents to alteration, variance, change, or modification of access card account information by another, in a manner that causes transactions initiated by that access card to be charged or billed to a person other than the cardholder to whom the access card was issued, is guilty of forgery.
(c)Every person who designs, makes, possesses, or traffics in card making equipment or incomplete access cards with the intent that the equipment or cards be used to make counterfeit access cards, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case:
People v. Molina, 120 Cal. App. 4th 507 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
People v. Molina, 120 Cal. App. 4th 507 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“, Pen. Code, § 484i, subd. (b) [“access card account information on any part of an access card, including information encoded in a magnetic stripe”].”
People v. Steffens, 62 Cal. App. 4th 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“(c)), possession of incomplete access cards (Pen. Code, § 484i, subd. (b)), possession of stolen property (Pen.”
People v. Dapont, No. H047903 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2022).
· cites it 2× “Code, § 459) and unlawful access card activity (Pen. Code, § 484i, subd. (c)) and was sentenced to a stipulated aggregate term of six years in prison.”
People v. Zitzer, No. A157250 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2021).
“(a)) and one count of unlawful use of an access card (Pen. Code, § 484i, subd. (c)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed in view of the plea.”
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.