Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-3124 (2026)

Fraudulent use of a financial transaction card or number. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Fraudulent use of a financial transaction card or number. 

It is a violation of the provisions of this section for any person with the intent to defraud:

(1)  To use an FTC or FTC number to knowingly and willfully exceed the actual balance of the demand deposit account or time deposit account;
(2)  To use an FTC or FTC number to willfully exceed an authorized credit line in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more, or fifty percent (50%) of such authorized credit line, whichever is greater;
(3)  To willfully deposit into his account or any other account by means of an automatic banking device, any false, forged, fictitious, altered or counterfeit check draft, money order, or any other such document;
(4)  To knowingly sell or attempt to sell credit card sales drafts to an authorized credit card merchant or any other person or organization, for any consideration whether at a discount or otherwise, or present or cause to be presented to the issuer or an authorized credit card merchant, for payment or collection, any credit card sales draft, or purchase or attempt to purchase any credit card sales draft for presentation to the issuer or an authorized credit card merchant for payment or collection if:
(a)  Such draft is counterfeit or fictitious;
(b)  The purported sale evidenced by such credit card sales draft did not take place;
(c)  The purported sale was not authorized by the card holder;
(d)  The items or services purported to be sold as evidenced by such credit card sales draft are not delivered or rendered to the card holder or person intended to receive them; or
(e)  If purportedly delivered or rendered, such goods or services are of materially lesser value or quality from that intended by the purchaser, or are materially different from goods or services represented by the seller or his agent to the purchaser, or have substantial discrepancies from goods or services impliedly represented by the purchase price when compared with the actual goods or services purportedly delivered or rendered.
(5)  To knowingly keep or maintain in any manner carbon or other impressions or copies of credit card sales drafts, and to use such impressions or copies for the purpose of creating any fictitious or counterfeit credit sales draft, or to engage in any other activity prohibited in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: State v. Hickman, 191 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hickman, 191 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “After all, either can be used to commit criminal offenses (I.C. §§ 18-3124 and 18-3125) or to endanger a person's credit.”
Michigan Fed'n of Teachers & Sch. Related Pers. v. Univ. of Michigan, 753 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “; Idaho Code Ann. 18-3124 et seq.; 720 Ill.”
State v. Gallipeau, 909 P.2d 619 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “§ 18-2403(1) and § 18-2407(l)(b)(3), and with two counts of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. § 18-3124. Galli-peau pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, and the other charges were dismissed.”
State v. Henderson, 808 P.2d 1324 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 18-3106(a), and one count of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. §§ 18-3124, 18-3127. The district court sentenced Henderson to the custody of the Board of Correction for indeterminate, concurrent terms of three years on the check charge and two years on the…”
State v. Johnson, 544 P.3d 766 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 18-3124(4)(c). And it is the nature of the wrongful conduct, not the moniker of the ultimate conviction (here petit theft) that drives the determination of whether the evidence is “probative of the [witness’s] character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
State v. Bradley S. Willey (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Willey pled guilty to fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. §§ 18-3124(1) and 18-3128; attempted fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.”
State v. Coats (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” Coats was not charged under Idaho Code § 18-3124 , fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, but rather he was charged under I.”
State v. Nathan Levi Schenk (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code §§ 18-3124 (1), 18-3128(1). The district court sentenced Schenk to a unified term of five years, with three years determinate, but suspended the sentence and placed Schenk on probation.”
State v. Tony Richard Jones (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “37505 Tony Richard Jones was convicted of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. § 18-3124(1), and in Docket No. 37507, Jones was convicted of forgery, I.”
State v. Ricardo A. Jimison (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Jimison pled guilty to fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, Idaho Code §§ 18-3124 , 18-3128(3). Following his release pending sentencing, Jimison failed to appear at his sentencing hearing and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.”
State v. Morris, 817 P.2d 1095 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 18-3124. He appeals from the judgment of the district court imposing a unified sentence of five years in the custody of the Board of Correction, with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen months.”
— Idaho Code § 18-3124(1) — 2 cases
State v. Bradley S. Willey (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). “Willey pled guilty to fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. §§ 18-3124(1) and 18-3128; attempted fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.”
State v. Tony Richard Jones (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). “37505 Tony Richard Jones was convicted of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, I.C. § 18-3124(1), and in Docket No. 37507, Jones was convicted of forgery, I.”
— Idaho Code § 18-3124(4)(c) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 544 P.3d 766 (Idaho 2024). “See I.C. § 18-3124(4)(c). And it is the nature of the wrongful conduct, not the moniker of the ultimate conviction (here petit theft) that drives the determination of whether the evidence is “probative of the [witness’s] character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
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.