History:
L. 1957, ch. 145, § 16; L. 1979, ch. 61, § 5; L. 1982, ch. 98, § 9; L. 1990, ch. 83, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 321, § 19; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 12; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 18; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 8; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Term "willfully" means intent to do the act denounced by the statute; section does not violate due process; arbitrary power not vested in commissioner to prosecute violations of securities act; attorney general and county attorneys also given power to prosecute. State v. Hodge, 204 Kan. 98, 109, 460 P.2d 596.
2. Sale of unregistered securities and failure to register; new trial ordered on convictions under K.S.A. 17-1253; trial court erred in instructing jury and in restricting cross-examination; appellate court may consider issues not raised at trial or on appeal where necessary to serve interests of justice or prevent denial of fundamental rights. State v. Puckett, 6 Kan. App. 2d 688, 689, 696, 697, 699, 634 P.2d 144 (1981); aff'd, 230 Kan. 596, 597, 640 P.2d 1198 (1981).
3. Cited; purpose of act explained; sale of "activator kits" constitutes sale of investment contracts (K.S.A. 17-1252(j)). Activator Supply Co. v. Wurth, 239 Kan. 610, 615, 621, 722 P.2d 1081 (1986).
4. Proof of specific intent not required to sustain convictions; term "willfully" defined. State v. Kershner, 15 Kan. App. 2d 17, 801 P.2d 68 (1990).
State Ex Rel. Mays v. Ridenhour, 811 P.2d 1220 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 4ד17-1266, to enforce the equitable remedies sought; K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 17-1267, to obtain criminal penalties; and K.”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6דWhile the violations are controlled by the same act, it is noted that K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1267( b ) states: "The commissioner may refer such evidence as may be available concerning violations of this act or of any rule and regulation or order hereunder to the attorney general…”
State v. Carr, 53 P.3d 843 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 2ד, K.S.A. 17-1267(a); K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4603d(f); K.”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. 1982). “The basis for reversal on the seven fraud counts was twofold: (1) That the trial court abused its discretion in limiting defense counsel in his cross-examination of the State’s expert witnesses; and (2) that the elements instruction on each of the fraud charges was defective…”
State v. Kershner, 801 P.2d 68 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2דDid the trial court err in finding proof of specific intent was not required to sustain the convictionsP Defendant argues that the crimes with which he was charged were specific intent crimes but, due to the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of “willful” under K.S.A.…”
State v. Hodge, 460 P.2d 596 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 2דSection 17-1267 (b) specifically gives the attorney general or the proper county attorney authority, with or without a reference to violations under the act by the commissioner, the authority to prosecute violations of the securities act.”
Activator Supply Co. v. Wurth, 722 P.2d 1081 (Kan. 1986). “K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 17-1267 makes violations of the act a criminal offense.”
In Re Kershner, 827 P.2d 1189 (Kan. 1992). “¶ 10, we stated that “[u]nder K.S.A. 17-1267 any person who willfully violates the provisions of the Kansas securities act is guilty of a felony, no specific intent being required to commit the offense.”
State v. Atteberry, 239 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “17-1254; and 10 counts of violating the emergency cease and desist order in violation of K.S.A. 17-1267(a). According to the amended complaint, the alleged unlawful acts took place on various dates between January 2003 and June 2005.”
State v. Ribadeneira, 817 P.2d 1105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “2d 68 (1990): “Defendant argues that the crimes with which he was charged were specific intent crimes but, due to the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of ‘willful’ under K.S.A. 17-1267(a), the State did not sustain its burden of proof.”
State v. Hood, 873 P.2d 1355 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 17-1267. The case was called for preliminary hearing on June 1, 1993.”
State v. Honton, 87 P.3d 328 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6ד17-1253 (Ensley 1988) (penalty section K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 17-1267). He received an indeterminate sentence of 3 to 10 years for the Class D felony as well as 2 years’ probation and was ordered to pay restitution.”
— K.S.A. § 17-1267(6) — 1 case
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “While the violations are controlled by the same act, it is noted that K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1267( b ) states: "The commissioner may refer such evidence as may be available concerning violations of this act or of any rule and regulation or order hereunder to the attorney general…”
— K.S.A. § 17-1267(a) — 5 cases
State v. Carr, 53 P.3d 843 (Kan. 2002). “, K.S.A. 17-1267(a); K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4603d(f); K.”
State v. Kershner, 801 P.2d 68 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “Did the trial court err in finding proof of specific intent was not required to sustain the convictionsP Defendant argues that the crimes with which he was charged were specific intent crimes but, due to the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of “willful” under K.S.A.…”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “While the violations are controlled by the same act, it is noted that K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1267( b ) states: "The commissioner may refer such evidence as may be available concerning violations of this act or of any rule and regulation or order hereunder to the attorney general…”
State v. Atteberry, 239 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “17-1254; and 10 counts of violating the emergency cease and desist order in violation of K.S.A. 17-1267(a). According to the amended complaint, the alleged unlawful acts took place on various dates between January 2003 and June 2005.”
State v. Ribadeneira, 817 P.2d 1105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “2d 68 (1990): “Defendant argues that the crimes with which he was charged were specific intent crimes but, due to the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of ‘willful’ under K.S.A. 17-1267(a), the State did not sustain its burden of proof.”
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.