Florida Statute 817.34 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 817
FRAUDULENT PRACTICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 817.034

817.034 Florida Communications Fraud Act.—

(1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—

(a) The Legislature recognizes that schemes to defraud have proliferated in the United States in recent years and that many operators of schemes to defraud use communications technology to solicit victims and thereby conceal their identities and overcome a victim’s normal resistance to sales pressure by delivering a personalized sales message.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent the use of communications technology in furtherance of schemes to defraud by consolidating former statutes concerning schemes to defraud and organized fraud to permit prosecution of these crimes utilizing the legal precedent available under federal mail and wire fraud statutes.

(2) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Florida Communications Fraud Act.”

(3) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Communicate” means to transmit or transfer or to cause another to transmit or transfer signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligences of any nature in whole or in part by mail, or by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system.

(b) “Obtain” means temporarily or permanently to deprive any person of the right to property or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to one’s own use or to the use of any other person not entitled thereto.

1. Real property, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land;

2. Tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims; and

3. Services.

(d) “Scheme to defraud” means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, endorsements of nonconsenting parties, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.

(e) “Value” means value determined according to any of the following:

1.a. The market value of the property at the time and place of the offense, or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.

b. The value of a written instrument that does not have a readily ascertainable market value, in the case of an instrument such as a check, draft, or promissory note, is the amount due or collectible or is, in the case of any other instrument which creates, releases, discharges, or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation, the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument.

c. The value of a trade secret that does not have a readily ascertainable market value is any reasonable value representing the damage to the owner, suffered by reason of losing an advantage over those who do not know of or use the trade secret.

2. If the value of property cannot be ascertained, the trier of fact may find the value to be not less than a certain amount; if no such minimum value can be ascertained, the value is an amount less than $300.

3. Amounts of value of separate properties obtained in one scheme to defraud, whether from the same person or from several persons, shall be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense under paragraph (4)(a).

(4) OFFENSES.—

(a) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby commits organized fraud, punishable as follows:

1. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, the person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

2. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $50,000, the person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of less than $20,000, the person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and, in furtherance of that scheme, communicates with any person with intent to obtain property from that person commits, for each such act of communication, communications fraud, punishable as follows:

1. If the value of property obtained or endeavored to be obtained by the communication is valued at $300 or more, the person commits a third degree felony, punishable as set forth in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

2. If the value of the property obtained or endeavored to be obtained by the communication is valued at less than $300, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as set forth in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(c) The penalty for committing an offense specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) against a person age 65 years or older, against a minor, or against a person with a mental or physical disability, as defined in s. 775.0863(1)(b), shall be reclassified as follows:

1. A misdemeanor of the first degree is reclassified to a felony of the third degree.

2. A felony of the third degree is reclassified to a felony of the second degree.

3. A felony of the second degree is reclassified to a felony of the first degree.

4. A felony of the first degree is reclassified to a life felony.

(d) A person whose image or likeness was used without his or her consent in a scheme to defraud may file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages caused by the use of his or her image or likeness. The remedies provided for in this paragraph shall be in addition to and not in limitation of the remedies available to any person under the common law or any other law.

(e) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of law, separate judgments and sentences for organized fraud under paragraph (a) and for each offense of communications fraud under paragraph (b) may be imposed when all such offenses involve the same scheme to defraud.

(f) Notwithstanding any other law, a criminal action or civil action or proceeding under this section may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the cause of action accrues; however, in a criminal proceeding under this section, the period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from this state or is without a reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within this state, but in no case shall this extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 1 year.

History.—s. 1, ch. 87-382; s. 1, ch. 2013-208; s. 1, ch. 2024-129.

F.S. 817.034 on Google Scholar

F.S. 817.034 on CourtListener

Amendments to 817.034

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 817.034

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S817.034 4a1 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - OBTAIN PROPERTY 50K DOLS OR MORE - F: F

S817.034 4a2 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - OBTAIN PROPERTY 20K LESS THAN 50K DOLS - F: S

S817.034 4a3 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - OBTAIN PROPERTY UNDER 20K DOLS - F: T

S817.034 4b1 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - OBTAIN PROPERTY COMMUNICATION 300 DOLS OR MORE - F: T

S817.034 4b2 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - OBTAIN PROPERTY COMMUNICATE UNDER 300 DOLS - M: F

S817.034 4b12 - FRAUD-SWINDLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC #7069 - M: F

Cases Citing Statute 817.034

Total Results: 73

Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey

915 F.3d 1276

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 8, 2019 | Docket: 14542305

Cited 187 times | Published

scheme to defraud in violation of Florida Statute § 817.034(4). Thus, there was no constitutional error in

Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

336 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19264

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2004 | Docket: 1398453

Cited 25 times | Published

allege state law violations (see Florida Statute § 817.034(b)), and mail and wire fraud claims, which allege

Donovan v. State

572 So. 2d 522, 1990 WL 179049

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1990 | Docket: 479655

Cited 23 times | Published

sentenced as follows: *525 Organized fraud, section 817.034(3), (4) Florida Statutes (1987): No sentence

Williams v. PEAK RESORTS INTERN. INC.

676 So. 2d 513, 1996 WL 387423

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 1996 | Docket: 1692931

Cited 14 times | Published

Iviolation of Florida's Communications Fraud Act, section 817.034, Florida Statutes (1991); (2) Count IIcommon

Black v. State

819 So. 2d 208, 2002 WL 1085251

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2002 | Docket: 1456941

Cited 13 times | Published

violation of the Florida Communications Fraud Act, section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1993). As predicate

Sewall v. State

783 So. 2d 1171, 2001 WL 394878

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2001 | Docket: 1259643

Cited 11 times | Published

acquittal on the charge of organized fraud. Section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that

Cherry v. State

592 So. 2d 292, 1991 WL 272643

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1991 | Docket: 160336

Cited 8 times | Published

Organized Fraud 13 years' incarceration, § 817.034(4)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (1987) followed by 7 years'

First Pacific Corp. v. Sociedade De Empreendimentos E Construcoes, Ltda.

566 So. 2d 3, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3151, 1990 WL 58285

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1990 | Docket: 547272

Cited 7 times | Published

(1987), theft, Florida Communications Fraud Act, § 817.034, Fla. Stat. (1987), and common law fraud. SECL

Smith v. State

76 So. 3d 1056, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20325, 2011 WL 6372986

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2011 | Docket: 2356804

Cited 6 times | Published

committing organized fraud, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2001). The state

Pizzo v. State

910 So. 2d 287, 2005 WL 1705237

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2005 | Docket: 1494483

Cited 6 times | Published

Pizzo with organized fraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides

Beamon v. State

23 So. 3d 209, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18430, 2009 WL 4282075

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2009 | Docket: 1657636

Cited 5 times | Published

constitutes an "organized fraud" within the meaning of § 817.034(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007).[2] In Pizzo v. State

Beamon v. State

23 So. 3d 209, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18430, 2009 WL 4282075

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2009 | Docket: 1657636

Cited 5 times | Published

constitutes an "organized fraud" within the meaning of § 817.034(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007).[2] In Pizzo v. State

Rodriguez v. State

956 So. 2d 1226, 2007 WL 1484955

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2007 | Docket: 1481251

Cited 5 times | Published

Appellant was charged with a violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2003), which makes

Young v. Moore

820 So. 2d 901, 2002 WL 1065931

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2002 | Docket: 1362542

Cited 5 times | Published

sentence for a first-degree felony violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995), the Florida

Taccariello v. State

664 So. 2d 1118, 1995 WL 733378

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1995 | Docket: 1229550

Cited 5 times | Published

organized scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)(2), Florida Statutes, and exploitation

Ward v. Nierlich

617 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24860, 2008 WL 852789

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2008 | Docket: 2209037

Cited 4 times | Published

[Count VII], § 772.103(4) [Count VIII], F.S. § 817.034 "Florida Communications Fraud Act" [Count IX][11]

Louberti v. State

895 So. 2d 479, 2005 WL 293021

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2005 | Docket: 1674385

Cited 4 times | Published

The crime of scheme to defraud is defined in section 817.034(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1999): [A] systematic

Rosen v. State

757 So. 2d 1236, 2000 WL 484797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2000 | Docket: 1331206

Cited 4 times | Published

State charged appellant with violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1997), the Florida

State v. Summerlot

711 So. 2d 589, 1998 WL 186898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 1998 | Docket: 1337181

Cited 4 times | Published

information with: 1) organized fraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1991), and 2) contracting

Kipping v. State

702 So. 2d 578, 1997 WL 721987

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1997 | Docket: 1513315

Cited 4 times | Published

charged with a scheme to defraud pursuant to section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), and twenty-two

Winokur v. State

605 So. 2d 100, 1992 WL 183983

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1992 | Docket: 1702110

Cited 4 times | Published

misplaced, as both Donovan and Cherry concern section 817.034, Fla. Stat. (1987), the successor to section

State v. Reyan

145 So. 3d 133, 2014 WL 2755838, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9214

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2014 | Docket: 60242632

Cited 3 times | Published

organized scheme to de*135fraud (in violation of section 817.034, Florida Statutes (2003)) and grand theft (in

Schneir v. State

43 So. 3d 135, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12414, 2010 WL 3324668

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2010 | Docket: 60295410

Cited 3 times | Published

twelve year sentence for organized fraud under Section 817.034(4)(a)(l), Fla. Stat., committed pursuant to

Stafford v. Don Reid Ford, Inc.

920 So. 2d 791, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2018, 2006 WL 358261

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2006 | Docket: 1440947

Cited 3 times | Published

PLEUS, C.J. and MONACO, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 817.034(4)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2005). [2] The civil action

Holcomb v. State

858 So. 2d 1112, 2003 WL 22438584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 2003 | Docket: 460738

Cited 3 times | Published

(holding a scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995), was a true

State v. Diaz

814 So. 2d 466, 2002 WL 215864

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2002 | Docket: 1368705

Cited 3 times | Published

schemes to defraud. 757 So.2d at 1238 (quoting § 817.034, Fla. Stat.). The court said, "An ongoing course

State v. Cronin

774 So. 2d 871, 2000 WL 1880209

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2000 | Docket: 1330877

Cited 3 times | Published

independently criminalize general schemes to defraud. See § 817.034(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We thus find no legislative

Cooks v. State

249 So. 3d 774

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2018 | Docket: 64683364

Cited 2 times | Published

engaging in a scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The charge was premised

Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance

981 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159639, 2013 WL 5948107

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2013 | Docket: 65995370

Cited 2 times | Published

Count 21, which charged a violation of Fla, Stat. § 817.034(4)(a). It alleged that Brasner had engaged in

DeLuise v. State

72 So. 3d 248, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16079, 2011 WL 4808267

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2011 | Docket: 60303233

Cited 2 times | Published

fraud is a sub-species of organized fraud. See § 817.034, Fla. Stat. As in Pizzo, all the elements of grand

State v. Varnum

991 So. 2d 918, 2008 WL 2986492

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 2008 | Docket: 2151474

Cited 2 times | Published

under the Florida Communications Fraud Act, section 817.034(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), and twenty-nine

Saddler v. State

921 So. 2d 777, 2006 WL 406958

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 2006 | Docket: 1659667

Cited 2 times | Published

February 13 and May 17, 2003, in violation of section 817.034(4), Florida Statutes (2003) (defining organized

Dixon v. State

584 So. 2d 195, 1991 WL 154821

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 1991 | Docket: 466700

Cited 2 times | Published

concur. NOTES [1] U.S. Const. amend. V. [2] § 817.034(4)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1989). [3] § 812.019(1),

State v. Joseph

94 So. 3d 672, 2012 WL 3238352, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13307

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2012 | Docket: 60310951

Cited 1 times | Published

Government of $50,000 or more, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2008). Prior to

O'KEEFE v. State

47 So. 3d 937, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17667, 2010 WL 4628512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2010 | Docket: 1927729

Cited 1 times | Published

committing organized fraud, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2001). The state

Design Pallets, Inc. v. Grayrobinson, P.A.

515 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57005, 2007 WL 2274432

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 2007 | Docket: 34296

Cited 1 times | Published

Fraud Plaintiffs allege violations of Fla. Stat. § 817.034(4)(a) and (b). First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs

Peterson v. Therma Builders, Inc.

958 So. 2d 977, 2007 WL 1452164

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2007 | Docket: 1734961

Cited 1 times | Published

in an amount of $50,000 or more pursuant to section 817.034(4)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2002). This criminal

Sibley v. State

955 So. 2d 1222, 2007 WL 1372676

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 2007 | Docket: 1186945

Cited 1 times | Published

entitled thereto. Donovan, 572 So.2d at 526 (citing § 817.034(4)(a), Fla. Stat.). Fraudulent use of personal

Darwish v. State

937 So. 2d 789, 2006 WL 2621781

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 2006 | Docket: 459679

Cited 1 times | Published

to defraud and obtaining property thereby, section 817.034(4)(a)(3), a third-degree felony (count two);

Estano v. State

595 So. 2d 973, 1992 WL 36300

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1992 | Docket: 1708979

Cited 1 times | Published

connection with these petit theft offenses. Section 817.034, the "Florida Communications Fraud Act," defines

State, Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Jackson

576 So. 2d 864, 1991 WL 35330

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1991 | Docket: 1242705

Cited 1 times | Published

fraudulent promise to furnish inside information"); § 817.034, Fla. Stat. (1989) ("Florida Communications Fraud

Lisa G. Miller v. the State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2025 | Docket: 70891673

Published

thus constitutes a prima facie case of violating § 817.034(3).”).

Allyn Vento v. The State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 14, 2024 | Docket: 69042410

Published

BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 817.034(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (“Any person who engages in

Jane Jeischa Aldana Perez, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jhourdan Hernandez v. Gregory Tony as Sherriff of Broward County

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2024 | Docket: 68307144

Published

(1) organized fraud, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2022);

CHARLIE DENNIS ALTMAN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2023 | Docket: 67174379

Published

organized scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034, and four counts of cashing or depositing

JOSE MIGUEL CEBEZ v. DANIEL JUNIOR, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 2022 | Docket: 63180097

Published

defraud/$50,000 or more pursuant to section 817.034(4)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (Count 5).

Lauren Eileen Carr v. State of Florida

270 So. 3d 508

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2019 | Docket: 15042040

Published

(enumerating elements necessary to prove violation of § 817.034(4)(a)). Therefore, the good-faith defense as to

Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 8, 2019 | Docket: 14548169

Published

scheme to defraud in violation of Florida Statute § 817.034(4). Thus, there was no constitutional error in

Gomez v. State

220 So. 3d 495, 2017 WL 1929685, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 2017 | Docket: 6060367

Published

more), a first degree felony, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1,; and Counts 3-6: uttering a worthless

Kingland Estates, Ltd. v. Davis

170 So. 3d 825, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8785, 2015 WL 3609072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2015 | Docket: 2663255

Published

organized scheme to defraud charge ... involves section 817.034(4)(a) 1., Florida Statutes (2003), which provides

Turner v. State

159 So. 3d 279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2964, 2015 WL 895302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2015 | Docket: 60246538

Published

body of count one that Mr. Turner violated section 817.034(4)(a)(3) by obtaining property from the victim

Joel De La Osa v. State

158 So. 3d 712, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2279, 2015 WL 669563

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2015 | Docket: 2634848

Published

scheme to defraud charge in Count III involves section 817.034(4)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2003), which provides

McCray v. State

121 So. 3d 603, 2013 WL 4007202, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12335

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2013 | Docket: 60234455

Published

organized scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2006), and nine

Dent v. State

125 So. 3d 205, 2013 WL 440117, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1846

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 2013 | Docket: 60235781

Published

organized scheme to defraud, in violation of section 817.034(4), Florida Statutes. The state charged and

Johnson v. State

126 So. 3d 1129, 2012 WL 2012147, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9012

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2012 | Docket: 60236192

Published

Communication fraud is a third degree felony. See § 817.034(4)(b)l, Fla. Stat. (2005). . Johnson successfully

Brooks v. State

114 So. 3d 965, 2012 WL 874547, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4209

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2012 | Docket: 60232022

Published

organized fraud of $50,000 or more in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)(l), Florida Statutes. Thereafter, Brooks

PETRAMALE v. State

79 So. 3d 162, 2012 WL 385481, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1788

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2012 | Docket: 2415937

Published

remanded. KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] § 817.034(4)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). [2] There are multiple

State v. Cohn

994 So. 2d 381, 2008 WL 4568034

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 2008 | Docket: 1218305

Published

East Everglades property. See § 817.034(3)(d), Fla. Stat.[1]; § 817.034(4)(a)(1), Fla. Stat.[2] It is

Weaver v. State

981 So. 2d 508, 2008 WL 859412

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2008 | Docket: 1515632

Published

defraud less than $20,000 in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (2007).[1] We affirm

Peterson v. State

974 So. 2d 1082, 2007 WL 283701

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2007 | Docket: 1717594

Published

amount of $50,000 or more in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1994), a first-degree

Armas v. State

947 So. 2d 675, 2007 WL 283690

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2007 | Docket: 1376870

Published

count) aggregate value of $50,000 or more, section 817.034(4)(a)(1), a first-degree felony. Criminal

Lewis v. State

861 So. 2d 1177, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18051, 2003 WL 22794437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 2003 | Docket: 64827190

Published

Stat. (1999). . See § 817.034(4)(b)(l), Fla. Stat. (1999). .See § 817.034(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1999)

Lewis v. State

833 So. 2d 812, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17136, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2520

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2002 | Docket: 64819762

Published

act of communication, of communications fraud.” § 817.034(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001). Further, the stated

Bejerano v. State

760 So. 2d 218, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5695, 2000 WL 569673

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 2000 | Docket: 64797925

Published

§§ 895.02(4); 817.234(l)(a), Fla. Stat. ' . § 817.034(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. .§ 817.234(l)(a), Fla.

Vicaria v. State

743 So. 2d 644, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15153, 1999 WL 1038443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1999 | Docket: 64791772

Published

his guilty plea to a charge that he violated section 817.034, Florida Statutes (1995), by participating

Beal v. State

713 So. 2d 1131, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9700, 1998 WL 429127

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1998 | Docket: 64781807

Published

C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 817.034(4), Fla. Stat. (1993).

Metevier v. State

675 So. 2d 260, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6497, 1996 WL 339120

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 1996 | Docket: 64765286

Published

violation of the Florida Communications Fraud Act, section 817.034, Florida Statutes, and a first degree misdemeanor

Russell v. State

675 So. 2d 961, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6230, 1996 WL 270828

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1996 | Docket: 64765510

Published

“communications fraud.” § 817.034, Fla.Stat. (1987). Pursuant to section 817.034(4)(a), “[a]ny person who

Wanner v. State

667 So. 2d 427, 1996 WL 22928

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1996 | Docket: 1511546

Published

PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 817.034(4)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 812.014(2)(a)(b)(c)

State v. Justice

624 So. 2d 402, 1993 WL 372169

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 1993 | Docket: 475651

Published

NOTES [1] See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). [2] § 817.034(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1989). [3] §§ 812.014(1)

Demcak v. State

616 So. 2d 519, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2997, 1993 WL 74944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1993 | Docket: 64695377

Published

SANDERS, E.P.B., Associate Judge, concur. . § 817.034(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1991). . Those unobjected

Bissell v. State

605 So. 2d 878, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5816, 1992 WL 111375

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 1992 | Docket: 64670105

Published

one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering; § 817.034(4), two counts of organized fraud; § 517.07, thirty

Batten v. State

591 So. 2d 960, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12124, 1991 WL 256206

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1991 | Docket: 64664403

Published

upon the Florida Communications Fraud Act (Act), § 817.034, Fla.Stat. (1989). In Donovan v. State, 572 So