O.C.G.A.

10-5A-6 (2019)

Fraudulent or deceitful acts or willful misappropriation prohibited

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall directly or indirectly:

(1) Cheat or defraud, or attempt to cheat or defraud, any other person or employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any other person;

(2) Willfully make any false report, enter any false record, or make any untrue statement of a material fact or fail to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;

(3) Engage in any transaction, act, practice, or course of business, including, without limitation, any form of advertising or solicitation, which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person; or

(4) Willfully misappropriate or convert the funds, security, or property of any other person in connection with the solicitation of a purchase or sale of, the offer to sell, the offer to purchase, the offer to enter into, or the entry into of any commodity contract or commodity option subject to the provisions of Code Section 10-5A-2, Code Section 10-5A-3, or paragraph (2) or (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section

History

Code 1981, § 10-5A-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1636, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2011–2011 · leading case: Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “judgment that they have clear title to their home, that the rejection of their tender of more than $800,000 through an escrow agent amounts to a violation of OCGA § 11-3-603 by the servicer and its lawyer, and that the lawyer for the servicer has engaged in “a scheme or artifice…”

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.