Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 570
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.145 (2026)

Financial exploitation of the elderly person or person with a disability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  570.145.  Financial exploitation of the elderly person or person with a disability — penalties — certain defense prohibited, additional violation, restitution. — 1.  A person commits the offense of financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability if such person knowingly obtains control over the property of the elderly person or person with a disability with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the use, benefit or possession of his or her property thereby benefitting the offender or detrimentally affecting the elderly person or person with a disability by:

  (1)  Deceit;

  (2)  Coercion;

  (3)  Creating or confirming another person's impression which is false and which the offender does not believe to be true;

  (4)  Failing to correct a false impression which the offender previously has created or confirmed;

  (5)  Preventing another person from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property involved;

  (6)  Selling or otherwise transferring or encumbering property, failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether such impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record;

  (7)  Promising performance which the offender does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed.  Failure to perform standing alone is not sufficient evidence to prove that the offender did not intend to perform; or

  (8)  Undue influence, which means the use of influence by someone who exercises authority over an elderly person or person with a disability in order to take unfair advantage of that person's vulnerable state of mind, neediness, pain, or agony.  Undue influence includes, but is not limited to, the improper or fraudulent use of a power of attorney, guardianship, conservatorship, or other fiduciary authority.

  2.  The offense of financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability is a class A misdemeanor unless:

  (1)  The value of the property is fifty dollars or more, in which case it is a class E felony;

  (2)  The value of the property is seven hundred fifty dollars or more, in which case it is a class D felony;

  (3)  The value of the property is five thousand dollars or more, in which case it is a class C felony;

  (4)  The value of the property is twenty-five thousand dollars or more, in which case it is a class B felony; or

  (5)  The value of the property is seventy-five thousand dollars or more, in which case it is a class A felony.

  3.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the remedies available to the victim pursuant to any state law relating to domestic violence.

  4.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose criminal liability on a person who has made a good faith effort to assist the elderly person or person with a disability in the management of his or her property, but through no fault of his or her own has been unable to provide such assistance.

  5.  Nothing in this section shall limit the ability to engage in bona fide estate planning, to transfer property and to otherwise seek to reduce estate and inheritance taxes; provided that such actions do not adversely impact the standard of living to which the elderly person or person with a disability has become accustomed at the time of such actions.

  6.  It shall not be a defense to financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability that the accused reasonably believed that the victim was not an elderly person or person with a disability.

  7.  (1)  It shall be unlawful in violation of this section for any person receiving or in the possession of funds of a Medicaid-eligible elderly person or person with a disability residing in a facility licensed under chapter 198 to fail to remit to the facility in which the Medicaid-eligible person resides all money owing the facility resident from any source, including, but not limited to, Social Security, railroad retirement, or payments from any other source disclosed as resident income contained in the records of the department of social services, family support division or its successor.  The department of social services, family support division or its successor is authorized to release information from its records containing the resident's income or assets to any prosecuting or circuit attorney in the state of Missouri for purposes of investigating or prosecuting any suspected violation of this section.

  (2)  The prosecuting or circuit attorney of any county containing a facility licensed under chapter 198, who successfully prosecutes a violation of the provisions of this subsection, may request the circuit court of the county in which the offender admits to or is found guilty of a violation, as a condition of sentence and/or probation, to order restitution of all amounts unlawfully withheld from a facility in his or her county.  Any order of restitution entered by the court or by agreement shall provide that ten percent of any restitution installment or payment paid by or on behalf of the defendant or defendants shall be paid to the prosecuting or circuit attorney of the county successfully prosecuting the violation to compensate for the cost of prosecution with the remaining amount to be paid to the facility.

­­--------

(L. 2000 H.B. 1386 & 1086, A.L. 2003 S.B. 556 & 311, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353, A.L. 2012 S.B. 689, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-respondent v. Janice a. Livingston-rivard, 461 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Missouri, Plaintiff-respondent v. Janice a. Livingston-rivard, 461 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Defendant was subsequently charged with two counts of financial exploitation of the elderly under § 570.145. 1 Defendant waived her right to a trial by jury and had a bench trial.”
State v. Christopher, 517 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “Witt, Judge Joshua Christopher (“Christopher”) appeals his conviction of the offense of financial exploitation of the elderly pursuant to section 570.145. 1 Christopher argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for acquittal because there was insufficient…”
Barry v. State, 404 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “3 At the plea hearing, the State described its evidence on Count III as follows: That [Movant] began a friendship with [the victim] in the year 2003, and in between the year of 2003 up to and including 2008 as described in the State’s information in Count Three, [the victim] was…”
State of Missouri v. Lindsay Michelle Forbes (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “The State charged Forbes with the Class B felony of financial exploitation of an elderly person by undue influence, pursuant to section 570.145. The information charging the offense alleged that Forbes committed the Class B felony of financial exploitation of the elderly,…”
State of Missouri, Plaintiff-respondent v. Christopher I Buller (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “On appeal, Defendant contends in two points that the trial court committed reversible error when it (1) admitted certain exhibits at trial and (2) denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case at the close of all of the evidence.”
State of Missouri v. Christina Halter (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “For the two transactions for the pre-payment of rent, the State charged Halter with two counts of financial exploitation of a disabled person, under section 570.145 RSMo3, class A felonies. The jury found Halter guilty on these charges and recommended terms of imprisonment for…”
State of Missouri v. Cheryl D. Kelly (Mo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “905 RSMo, and one count of financial exploitation of the elderly, section 570.145 RSMo. On appeal, Kelly claims instructional and evidentiary errors.”
Est. of Marvin Byas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. (E.D. Mo. 2020). · cites it 3× “This claim is premised on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.145 . As Defendant Argent Mortgage points out in their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, this is a criminal statute that does not create a private cause of action.”
State of Missouri v. Lindsay Michelle Forbes (Mo. 2023). · cites it 2× “5 because it criminalized conduct that is not criminal, erred in setting aside its ruling sustaining Forbes' motion for new trial, and erred in submitting Instruction No. 5 because it violated her right to unanimous verdict pursuant to article I, § 22 of the Missouri…”
State v. Edwards, 456 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “appeals his conviction and twelve-year sentence for class A felony financial exploitation of the elderly, section 570.145, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. He raises three points on appeal regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and closing argument.”
Fifth Third Bank v. Est. of Patricia Lynn Shaw-schneller, a/k/a/ Patricia Schneller, Carney Schneller, a/k/a/ Carney J. Schneller, Janet Lea Schneller, a/k/a Janet Lea Collier, & Ncmic Fin. Corp. (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 570.145(1)). II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT IT DENIED APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW ( 15 U.”
HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). “Factual and Procedural Background By amended felony information, defendant Roberts was charged with violating § 570.145 by “misrepresent[ing] the validity of a stock purchase agreement” and thereby knowingly obtaining control of at least $50,000 belonging to the victim.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.145(1): 1 case
Fifth Third Bank v. Est. of Patricia Lynn Shaw-schneller, a/k/a/ Patricia Schneller, Carney Schneller, a/k/a/ Carney J. Schneller, Janet Lea Schneller, a/k/a Janet Lea Collier, & Ncmic Fin. Corp. (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 570.145(1)). II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT IT DENIED APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW ( 15 U.”
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.