O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-51 (2019)

Destruction, removal, concealment, encumbrance, or transfer of property subject to security interest

✓ 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

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers, or otherwise deals with property subject to a security interest with intent to hinder enforcement of that interest shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) A person who destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers, or otherwise deals with property subject to a security interest with intent to hinder enforcement of that security interest and in so doing does damage to such property in an amount greater than $500.00 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(c) In a prosecution under this Code section the crime shall be considered as having been committed in any county where any act in furtherance of the criminal scheme was done or caused to be done.

History

(Code 1933, § 26-1707, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 299, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Misdemeanor offense under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-51 does not require proof of ‘‘intent to defraud,’’ but requires only proof that one has dealt with property subject to a security interest with intent to hinder enforcement of that interest. Worth v. State, 179 Ga. App. 207, 346 S.E.2d 82 (1986).

Cited in Garrett v. State, 133 Ga. App. 503, 211 S.E.2d 441 (1974); Sowards v. State, 137 Ga. App. 423, 224 S.E.2d 85 (1976); Trogdon v. State, 176 Ga. App. 246, 335 S.E.2d 481 (1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 35 C.J.S., False Pretenses, §§ 21, 33. 37 C.J.S., Fraud, §§ 123, 124. ALR. - Duty of senior encumbrancer on sale under judicial decree, or under power of sale, to observe equities of subsequent encumbrancers or purchasers as to marshaling assets or sale in inverse order of alienation, 35 A.L.R. 1307; 131 A.L.R. 4.

May offense of obtaining money or property by false pretenses or confidence game be predicated on obtaining loan or renewal thereof, 52 A.L.R. 1167. Elements and proof of crime of improper sale, removal, concealment, or disposal of property subject to security interest under UCC, 48 A.L.R.4th 819.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2000 · leading case: Trogdon v. State, 335 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trogdon v. State, 335 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “In June 1984, the Bank’s attorneys, serving as special prosecutors for the State Court of Coweta County, prepared an accusation against the appellant, charging him with violation of OCGA § 16-9-51. Even though he was charged with a misdemeanor and had no prior criminal record,…”

Worth v. State, 346 S.E.2d 82 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “Appellant was tried before a jury on an accusation charging him with the offense of endangering a security interest in violation of OCGA § 16-9-51. The accusation specifically alleged that appellant had “transfer [red] property, to wit: one Case Tractor Forklift, Serial Number…”

Mead v. State, 542 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Mead asked that the jury be instructed with regard to OCGA § 16-9-51 (a) which provides: “[A] person who destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers, or otherwise deals with property subject to a security interest with intent to hinder enforcement of that interest shall…”

Trogdon v. State, 176 Ga. App. 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “But even if omission to act is not embraced within the meaning of OCGA § 16-9-51 (b), the act of misrepresenting the status of the auto as collateral would be sufficient to establish venue.”

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.