UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT (2002)
Act 551 of 2008
451.2501 Unlawful conduct; fraud.
Sec. 501.
It is unlawful for a person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security or the organization or operation of a Michigan investment market under article 4A, to directly or indirectly do any of the following:
(a) Employ a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.
(b) Make an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
(c) Engage in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit on another person.
History: 2008, Act 551, Eff. Oct. 1, 2009 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 355, Imd. Eff. Oct. 21, 2014
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of securities division of office of finance and insurance regulation from office of finance and insurance regulation to department of licensing and regulatory affairs, see E.R.O. No. 2012-6, compiled at MCL 445.2034.
Enacting section 1 of Act 355 of 2014 provides:
"Enacting section 1. It is the intent of the legislature by enacting this amendatory act to regulate a class of intrastate broker-dealers that is exempt under section 15(a)(1) of the securities exchange act of 1934, 15 USC 78o, and that will facilitate intrastate securities transactions among persons of this state."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
Pransky v. Falcon Grp., Inc, 874 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Pransky v. Falcon Grp., Inc, 874 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “However, it also chose to protect the public by regulating the persons who are involved with the offer and sale of securities.”
La Developers LLC v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “, MCL 451.2501; MCL 451.2502; see also People v Breckenridge, 81 Mich App at 14 (stating that courts must look beyond the labels and devices employed by the parties to determine the real intent and purpose of the parties).”
Jillson v. Elrod (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “As such, Jilson has not plausibly alleged Elrod sold him a security within the meaning of Michigan’s Uniform Securities Act and has failed to state a claim for a violation of MCL 451.2501. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count Seven.”
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wilson (E.D. Mich. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, Faher was convicted of four felony counts of securities fraud, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 451.2501 , 451.2508, in the Second Circuit Court of Berrien County.”
Palmer v. Am. Express (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2× “[,]” Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2501 , is not implicated by Defendant’s “denial of Plaintiff’s credit application .”
Mercantile Bank of Michigan v. Clmia LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “The trial court, however, opined that both the definition of investment advisor under MUSA and MCL 451.502 require the involvement of a security in the transaction and that the swap agreement is not a security such that the MUSA is inapplicable.”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of 105 to 240 months for the racketeering conviction and 80 to 120 months for each remaining conviction. Defendant appeals as of right.”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The trial court sentenced defendant, departing upward, to 80 months’ to 10 years’ imprisonment for each of the securities convictions and 30 months’ to 5 years’ imprisonment for the larceny conviction, all to be served concurrently.”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The trial court sentenced defendant, departing upward, to 80 months’ to 10 years’ imprisonment for each of the securities convictions and 30 months’ to 5 years’ imprisonment for the larceny conviction, all to be served concurrently.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2501(b) — 1 case
La Developers LLC v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“, MCL 451.2501; MCL 451.2502; see also People v Breckenridge, 81 Mich App at 14 (stating that courts must look beyond the labels and devices employed by the parties to determine the real intent and purpose of the parties).”
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.