K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-5830 (2026)

Impairing a security interest

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-5830. Impairing a security interest. (a) Impairing a security interest is, with intent to defraud the secured party:

(1) Damaging, destroying or concealing any personal property subject to a security interest;

(2) selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of any personal property subject to a security interest without the written consent of the secured party, where such sale, exchange or other disposition is not authorized by the secured party under the terms of the security agreement; or

(3) failing to account to the secured party for the proceeds of the sale, exchange or other disposition of any personal property subject to a security interest, where such sale, exchange or other disposition is authorized and such accounting for proceeds is required by the secured party under the terms of the security agreement or otherwise.

(b) Impairing a security interest, when the personal property subject to the security interest is of the value of:

(1) $25,000 or more and is subject to a security interest of $25,000 or more is a severity level 7, nonperson felony;

(2) at least $1,000 and is subject to a security interest of at least $1,000 and either the value of the property or the security interest is less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony; and

(3) less than $1,000, or of the value of $1,000 or more but subject to a security interest of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 116; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: State v. Rozell, 472 P.3d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rozell, 472 P.3d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5830[a][2]). The court explained that because the current statute was entitled "impairing a security interest," it was clear that the Legislature meant for the crime of "impairing a security interest" to "concern[] not only .”
Crawford v. Guar. State Bank & Trust Co., The (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 2× “80 On the same date that the KBI affidavit was signed, Plaintiff was criminally charged in Logan County, Kansas District Court with two felonies: Impairing a Security Interest in violation of K.S.A. § 21-5830(a)(3), and Making False Information in violation of K.”
State v. Rozell (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5830[a][2]). The court explained that because the current statute was entitled "impairing a security interest," it was clear that the Legislature meant for the crime of "impairing a security interest" to "concern[] not only .”
State v. Alashqar (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2018, the State charged Alashqar with five counts of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 21-5830(a)(3), (b)(2)—all based on his alleged participation in a fraud scheme involving a used car lot operated by his brother.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5830(a)(3) — 2 cases
Crawford v. Guar. State Bank & Trust Co., The (D. Kan. 2024). “80 On the same date that the KBI affidavit was signed, Plaintiff was criminally charged in Logan County, Kansas District Court with two felonies: Impairing a Security Interest in violation of K.S.A. § 21-5830(a)(3), and Making False Information in violation of K.”
State v. Alashqar (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2018, the State charged Alashqar with five counts of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 21-5830(a)(3), (b)(2)—all based on his alleged participation in a fraud scheme involving a used car lot operated by his brother.”
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.