(a) Any person who wilfully engages in the business of a pawnbroker, unless licensed according to law, or after notice that his or her license has been suspended or revoked, shall be guilty of a class D felony.
(b) Any person who wilfully violates any of the provisions of this chapter for which no other penalty is provided shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(1949 Rev., S. 4668; P.A. 97-164, S. 7; P.A. 11-100, S. 9.)
History: P.A. 97-164 added reference to “limited liability company”, increased the penalty for engaging in business without a license to a class D felony, increased the penalty to a class A misdemeanor for violating provisions of the chapter for which no other penalty is provided, neglecting to keep a record-keeping system or make the required entries, refusing to allow inspection of such system and receiving property from a minor and designated said latter penalty provision as new Subsec. (b); P.A. 11-100 made conforming changes re definitions in Sec. 21-39a added by same act, amended Subsec. (a) to add “suspended or” and delete provision re treble forfeiture, amended Subsec. (b) to delete provision re record-keeping system, and made technical changes.
Cited. 201 C. 89.
Secs. 21-47a to 21-47c. Reserved for future use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1986–2014 · leading case:
State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003).
State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003).
“See [General Statutes] § 21-47 (a). Then one day, while conducting some unlicensed pawnbroking business with a customer who is trying to borrow a few dollars on his watch, two hated enemies of our proprietor come into the store, not knowing he is there and intending only to…”
Rhodes v. City of Hartford, 513 A.2d 124 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “” In determining the applicability of these two sections, the central issue before us is, therefore, whether a pawnbroker who engages in a repurchase transaction is, for purposes of § 21-44, a pawnbroker who takes or receives, directly or indirectly, interest in return for the…”
Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc. (Conn. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The dissenting justice states that we mistakenly rely on the 1997 amend- ment to the pre-1997 version of General Statutes § 21-47; see P.A. 97-164, § 7; because the language in that amendment refers to purchases.”
Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc (Conn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “to 1997) § 21-47 was amended to add a reference to outright purchase trans- actions; P.”
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.