O.C.G.A. § 16-9-32 (2019)
Forgery of financial transaction card
(a) A person commits the offense of financial transaction card forgery when: (1) With intent to defraud a purported issuer; a person or organization providing money, goods, services, or anything else of value; or any other person, he falsely makes or falsely embosses a purported financial transaction card; (2) With intent to defraud a purported issuer; a person or organization providing money, goods, services, or anything else of value; or any other person, he falsely encodes, duplicates, or alters existing encoded information on a financial transaction card or utters such a financial transaction card; or (3) He, not being the cardholder or a person authorized by him, with intent to defraud the issuer; a person or organization providing money, goods, services, or anything else of value; or any other person, signs a financial transaction card. (b) A person falsely makes a financial transaction card when he makes or draws in whole or in part a device or instrument which purports to be the financial transaction card of a named issuer but which is not such a financial transaction card because the issuer did not authorize the making or drawing or when he alters a financial transaction card which was validly issued. (c) A person falsely embosses a financial transaction card when without authorization of the named issuer he completes a financial transaction card by adding any of the matter other than the signature of the cardholder, which an issuer requires to appear on the financial transaction card before it can be used by a cardholder. (d) A person falsely encodes a financial transaction card when without authorization of the purported issuer he records, erases, or otherwise alters magnetically, electronically, electromagnetically, or by any other means whatsoever information on a financial transaction
FORGERY & FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
card which will permit acceptance of that card by any automated banking device. (e) Conviction of the offense of financial transaction card forgery shall be punishable as provided in subsection (b) of Code Section (f ) When a person other than the purported issuer possesses two or more financial transaction cards which are falsely made, falsely encoded, or falsely embossed, such possession shall be prima-facie evidence that said cards were obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section.
History
(Code 1933, § 26-1705.3, enacted by Ga. L. 1969, p. 128, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-1705.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1083, § 1.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 16-9-32 is violated when an individual comes into possession of a credit card, without having actually stolen the credit card, and without consent ‘‘withholds’’ the card from the possession, custody or control of the owner. Slack v. State, 159 Ga. App. 185, 283 S.E.2d 64 (1981). It is not necessary to negate that the defendant had been entrusted with credit cards. Dudley v. State, 228 Ga. 551, 186 S.E.2d 875 (1972). Evidence of burglary admissible. - Evidence that card in question was discovered missing from the card’s normal location following a burglary is admissible. McKenzey v. State, 125 Ga. App. 508, 188
S.E.2d 116, later appeal, 127 Ga. App. 304, 193 S.E.2d 226 (1972). Intention required by former Code 1933, § 26-1705.2 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-9-32) was for jury determination based on the defendant’s actions and conduct. McKenzey v. State, 125 Ga. App. 508, 188 S.E.2d 116, later appeal, 127 Ga. App. 304, 193 S.E.2d 226 (1972). Recent unexplained possession and use of stolen credit card is sufficient to support conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-32 for theft by ‘‘withholding’’ the credit card from the card’s rightful owner. Slack v. State, 159 Ga. App. 185, 283 S.E.2d 64 (1981).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Credit Cards and Charge Accounts, § 1 et seq. ALR. - Liability of holder of credit
card or plate for purchases made thereon by another person, 15 A.L.R.3d 1086.