Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157s (2026)

Use of revoked or cancelled financial transaction device with intent to defraud.

✓ 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


750.157s Use of revoked or cancelled financial transaction device with intent to defraud.

Sec. 157s.

    (1) A person who, for the purpose of obtaining goods, property, services, or anything of value, knowingly and with intent to defraud uses 1 or more financial transaction devices that have been revoked or canceled by the issuer of the device or devices, as distinguished from expired, and has received notice of the revocation or cancellation is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) If the value of the goods, property, services, or anything of value is less than $100.00, as follows:

    (i) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

    (ii) For an offense following 1 or more prior convictions under this section or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

    (b) If the value of the goods, property, services, or anything of value is $100.00 or more but less than $500.00, as follows:

    (i) For a first or second offense, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate value of the goods, property, services, or anything of value, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

    (ii) For an offense following 2 or more prior convictions under this section, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. For purposes of this subparagraph, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subdivision (a).

    (c) If the value of the goods, property, services, or anything of value is $500.00 or more, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate value of the goods, property, services, or anything of value, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

    (2) The values of goods, property, services, or things of value obtained in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated to determine the total value of goods, property, services, or things of value obtained.

    (3) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions shall be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

    (a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.

    (b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.

    (c) Information contained in a presentence report.

    (d) The defendant's statement.

    (4) If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance the sentence for the conviction pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.10, 769.11, and 769.12.

History: Add. 1967, Act 255, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 183, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 276, Eff. Mar. 30, 1988 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 312, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016).
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “131(5) (checks drawn on insufficient funds); MCL 750.157s(4) (use of revoked or canceled financial transaction devices with intent to defraud); MCL 750.”
People v. Ford, 331 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 2× “" [5] MCL 750.157s; MSA 28.354(18): "Any person who, for the purpose of obtaining goods, property, services or anything of value, knowingly and with intent to defraud uses a credit card which has been revoked or canceled by the issuer thereof, as distinguished from expired, and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157s(4) — 1 case
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016). “131(5) (checks drawn on insufficient funds); MCL 750.157s(4) (use of revoked or canceled financial transaction devices with intent to defraud); MCL 750.”
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.