Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157n (2026)

Stealing, taking, or removing financial transaction device; possession of fraudulent or altered financial transaction device.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.157n Stealing, taking, or removing financial transaction device; possession of fraudulent or altered financial transaction device.

Sec. 157n.

    (1) A person who steals knowingly takes, or knowingly removes a financial transaction device from the person or possession of a deviceholder, or who knowingly retains, knowingly possesses, knowingly secretes, or knowingly uses a financial transaction device without the consent of the deviceholder, is guilty of a felony.

    (2) A person who knowingly possesses a fraudulent or altered financial transaction device is guilty of a felony.

History: Add. 1967, Act 255, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 276, Eff. Mar. 30, 1988

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: People v. Malone, 792 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Malone, 792 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “MCL 750.157n; Valentin, 457 Mich at 5 . The statute at issue does not require an actual attempt to gain access *657 to the accounts by the possessor of the copy of the proprietary information.”
People v. Maynor, 662 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “[27] MCL 750.157n(1). [28] Ainsworth, supra at 325 , 495 N.”
People v. Williams, 737 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “529a, and retaining a financial transaction device without consent, MCL 750.157n(l). He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Wood, 862 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “360; and two counts of possessing, retaining, secreting, or using a financial transaction device, MCL 750.157n(l). The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Burrell, 339 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. 1983). “The defendant was arrested and charged with a credit card offense, MCL 750.157n; MSA 28.354(14). Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized was denied.”
People v. Green, 580 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “279, and two counts of retaining a financial transaction device without consent, MCL 750.157n; MSA 28.354(14). Baker was also convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.”
People v. Ainsworth, 495 N.W.2d 177 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “On October 2, 1990, defendant was arrested in Livingston County because he had in his possession the wallet, credit cards, and checks belonging to Hoffman. Defendant was charged with the crimes of receiving and concealing stolen property, MCL 750.”
People v. Anderson, 706 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “” It seems to us that the Legislature may very well have intended precisely that because another crime, embezzlement, applies to this situation.”
Brown v. Foltz, 583 F. Supp. 1063 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 750.157n. 3 After the issuance of the complaint relating to the credit card on March 19, 1975 in the 46th District Court, petitioner was charged with robbery armed in Detroit Recorder’s Court.”
People v. Campbell, 233 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “MCLA 750.157n; MSA 28.354(14). He was sentenced to from 2 years and 8 months to 4 years in prison.”
People v. Rush, 305 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Defendant pled guilty to five counts of knowingly retaining or securing a credit card without the consent of the cardholder, MCL 750.157n; MSA 28.354(14). She was sentenced to five concurrent prison terms of from 32 to 48 months and appeals as of right.”
People v. Khanani, 817 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “65, and stealing or retaining a financial transaction device without consent, MCL 750.157n(l). Second, in LC No. 10-001149-FH, defendant pleaded guilty of breaking and entering a vehicle causing damage, MCL 750.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157n(1) — 27 cases
People v. Malone, 792 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 750.157n; Valentin, 457 Mich at 5 . The statute at issue does not require an actual attempt to gain access *657 to the accounts by the possessor of the copy of the proprietary information.”
People v. Maynor, 662 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “[27] MCL 750.157n(1). [28] Ainsworth, supra at 325 , 495 N.”
People of Michigan v. Keegan William Kangas (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Martell Washington (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Martell Washington (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157n(2) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. Nickelus Grannum-Emerson (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Marcellis Rayimonte Tinsley (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Keith Bernard Slaughter (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Christopher Shaun Hazen (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157n(l) — 7 cases
People v. Malone, 792 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 750.157n; Valentin, 457 Mich at 5 . The statute at issue does not require an actual attempt to gain access *657 to the accounts by the possessor of the copy of the proprietary information.”
People v. Williams, 737 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “529a, and retaining a financial transaction device without consent, MCL 750.157n(l). He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Wood, 862 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “360; and two counts of possessing, retaining, secreting, or using a financial transaction device, MCL 750.157n(l). The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People v. Maynor, 662 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “[27] MCL 750.157n(1). [28] Ainsworth, supra at 325 , 495 N.”
People v. Anderson, 706 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “” It seems to us that the Legislature may very well have intended precisely that because another crime, embezzlement, applies to this situation.”
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.