O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-4-22 (2019)

Buying, selling, receiving, concealing, using, possessing, or disposing of motor vehicle or part thereof from which identification has been removed or altered

✓ 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) It shall be unlawful to buy, sell, receive, dispose of, conceal, use, or possess any motor vehicle, or any part thereof, from which the manufacturer’s serial numbers or other distinguishing numbers or identifying marks have been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of such motor vehicle. (b) Any person who knowingly violates any provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

History

Ga. L. 1918, p. 264, § 1; Code 1933,

§ 68-9916; Ga. L. 1966, p. 10, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 40.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Guilty knowledge of alteration required. - To convict the driver of violating former Code 1933, § 68-9916 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-4-22), the finder of fact must find knowledge of alteration, which was the gist of the offense. Dooley v. State, 145 Ga. App. 539, 244 S.E.2d 55, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2196, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 912, 99 S. Ct. 282, 58 L. Ed. 2d 258, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 3466 (1978); Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2971 (1981). Description of property in indictment. - Property need not be described in an offense under Ga. L. 1918, p. 264, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-4-22) with the same accuracy as in simple larceny. Glass v. State, 26 Ga. App. 157, 106 S.E. 13, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 38 (1921). Knowing possession of “clipped” car, meaning that one-half of described vehicle had been welded to one-half of unidentified vehicle, except under a license to rebuild, is a felony. Bill Spreen Toyota, Inc. v. Jenquin, 163 Ga. App. 855, 294 S.E.2d 533, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2692 (1982). Evidence deemed sufficient to authorize conviction. - Evidence,

though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize a conviction for unlawful alteration under former Code 1933, § 68-9916 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-4-22) after the defendant removed the identification plate from the cab of defendant’s 1975 vehicle and placed the identification plate in the automobile, seeking to conceal the true identity of the stolen goods and to misrepresent the goods as being defendant’s own. McJunkin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 30, 285 S.E.2d 756, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2861 (1981). Defendant was convicted of possession of a motor vehicle with the VIN number removed after VIN numbers had been falsified and the cars reported stolen and, furthermore, the defendant was unable to produce any paperwork supporting the defendant’s claimed lawful ownership. Clarke v. State, 356 Ga. App. 580, 848 S.E.2d 192, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 492 (2020).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 391, 392. C.J.S. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 1745, 1746.

ALR. Constitutionality of statute making possession of an automobile from which identifying marks have been removed a crime, 42 A.L.R. 1149.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Ramey v. State, 521 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ramey v. State, 521 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “After a jury trial, James Lyn Ramey was acquitted of theft by receiving stolen property, OCGA § 16-9-7 (a), but convicted of theft by deception, OCGA § 16-8-3, and selling a motor vehicle with an altered vehicle identification number, OCGA § 40-4-22 (a). Appealing from the trial…”
Todd v. State, 362 S.E.2d 400 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The circumstances surrounding delivery of the pickup truck, combined with the evidence that the vehicle identification numbers had been removed from both it and the Mercedes in violation of OCGA § 40-4-22, was sufficient to warrant an inference of guilty knowledge with respect…”
Brown v. State, 495 S.E.2d 858 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 40-4-22. Brown’s sole enumeration of error is that the court erred by failing to separate the trial of the Nissan charge from the Ford charges.”
Graham v. State, 639 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “After the jury had deliberated for some time, it sent a handwritten question to the court: “Dear Judge, according to count number 15, does Eddie have to know that these cars are knowingly stolen or defaced, OCGA § 40-4-22 Pg. 27, Pg. 12 E. [sic].” Without objection from either…”
Wilmott v. State, 755 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Wilmott also was indicted for violating OCGA § 40-4-22 with respect to the same motorcycle.”
Michael Wilmott v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Wilmott also was indicted for violating OCGA § 40-4-22 with respect to the same motorcycle.”
Andros v. Tinsley (M.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 3× “§ 16-8-7 Theft by receiving stolen property, and (2) O.C.G.A. § 40-4-22 Buying, selling, receiving, concealing, using, possessing, or disposing of motor vehicle or part thereof from which identification has been removed or altered.”
Oniel W. Clarke v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Following a jury trial, Oniel Clarke was convicted of two counts each of theft by receiving stolen property, OCGA § 16-8-7, and possession of a motor vehicle with identification removed, OCGA § 40-4-22. Clarke appeals from the judgment of conviction and the denial of his motion…”
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.