Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 205 - CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377 (2026)

Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty; investigation and prosecution by Attorney General

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.377  Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty; investigation and prosecution by Attorney General.

      1.  A person shall not, in the course of an enterprise or occupation, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, engage in an act, practice or course of business or employ a device, scheme or artifice which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact that:

      (a) The person knows to be false or omitted;

      (b) The person intends another to rely on; and

      (c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission,

Ê in at least two transactions that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents within 4 years and in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $1,200.

      2.  Each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.

      3.  A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

      4.  In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order a person who violates subsection 1 to pay restitution.

      5.  A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive.

      6.  The Attorney General may investigate and prosecute a violation of this section and any other statute violated in the course of committing a violation of this section.

      7.  As used in this section, “enterprise” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.380.

      (Added to NRS by 2009, 143; A 2011, 168; 2019, 4434; 2023, 1764)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case: Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int'l (D. Nev. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int'l (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 10× “14 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377 (emphasis added).”
Leal v. Hutchings (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 6× “”85 7 Leal was charged with multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in the course of 8 enterprise or occupation in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377 (1).86 Leal’s information cited 9 to this statute and defined, almost verbatim, the elements of the crime.”
Ehmann v. Desert Palace, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 5× “Claims under Nevada Statutes 23 Ehmann’s first claim is based Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.377, the Nevada counterpart 24 to the federal RICO claim.”
Ahearn (Jamison) v. State (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “" A transaction is an lalict of transacting or conducting any business." Transaction, Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.”
Munoz (Jennifer) v. State (Nev. 2016). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Munoz knowingly and with fraudulent intent engaged in an act that operated a fraud by falsely representing something Munoz knew to be false, that she intended the victim to…”
Lampkin (Brittani) v. State (Nev. 2016). “See NRS 205.377(1) (2010). The jury could also reasonably infer that Lampkin agreed to participate in Club Exclusive II's fraudulent scheme and overtly acted to effect this agreement.”
Buford (Gia) v. State (Nev. 2016). “The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Buford committed five counts of theft, five counts of multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in the course of enterprise or occupation, four counts of obtaining money under false pretenses, one count of…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377(1) — 4 cases
Munoz (Jennifer) v. State (Nev. 2016). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A e The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Munoz knowingly and with fraudulent intent engaged in an act that operated a fraud by falsely representing something Munoz knew to be false, that she intended the victim to…”
Lampkin (Brittani) v. State (Nev. 2016). “See NRS 205.377(1) (2010). The jury could also reasonably infer that Lampkin agreed to participate in Club Exclusive II's fraudulent scheme and overtly acted to effect this agreement.”
Ahearn (Jamison) v. State (Nev. 2016). “" A transaction is an lalict of transacting or conducting any business." Transaction, Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.”
Leal v. Hutchings (D. Nev. 2022). “”85 7 Leal was charged with multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in the course of 8 enterprise or occupation in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377 (1).86 Leal’s information cited 9 to this statute and defined, almost verbatim, the elements of the crime.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.377(5) — 1 case
Ehmann v. Desert Palace, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). “Claims under Nevada Statutes 23 Ehmann’s first claim is based Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.377, the Nevada counterpart 24 to the federal RICO claim.”
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.