NRS
205.690 Obtaining or possessing credit card or debit card, or
identifying description of credit card, credit account or debit card without
consent of cardholder; presumption from possession; exemptions.
1. A person who steals, takes or removes a
credit card or debit card from the person, possession, custody or control of
another without the cardholder’s consent or who, with knowledge that a credit
card or debit card has been so taken, removed or stolen receives the credit
card or debit card with the intent to circulate, use or sell it or to transfer
it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder, is guilty of a category
D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS
193.130. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person
to pay restitution.
2. A person who possesses a credit card or
debit card without the consent of the cardholder and with the intent to
circulate, use, sell or transfer the credit card or debit card with the intent
to defraud is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided
in NRS 193.130. In addition to any other
penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
3. A person who has in his or her
possession or under his or her control two or more credit cards or debit cards
issued in the name of another person is presumed to have obtained and to possess
the credit cards or debit cards with the knowledge that they have been stolen
and with the intent to circulate, use, sell or transfer them with the intent to
defraud. The presumption established by this subsection does not apply to the
possession of two or more credit cards or debit cards used in the regular
course of the possessor’s business or employment or where the possession is
with the consent of the cardholder.
4. The provisions of this section do not
apply to a person employed by or operating a business, including, but not
limited to, a bank or other financial institution, credit bureau, collection
agency or credit reporting agency, who, without the intent to defraud, lawfully
furnishes to another person or obtains the number or other identifying physical
or electronic description of a credit card, debit card or credit account in the
ordinary course of that business or employment or pursuant to a financial
transaction entered into with a customer.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Credit card” includes, without limitation,
the number or other identifying physical or electronic description of a credit
card or credit account.
(b) “Debit card” includes, without limitation,
the number or other identifying physical or electronic description of a debit
card.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
360; A 1977,
266; 1979,
1451; 1981,
9; 1985,
1456; 1991,
155; 1995,
1231; 1999,
47; 2009,
171)
Notes of Decisions
Hector Mancilla-Delafuente v. Loretta E. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 5× “As the element of intent to defraud applies to all conduct proscribed by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.690 (2), we do not proceed to the modified categorical approach.”
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 2× “760(l)(a) provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, “[ujses a credit card or debit card to obtain money, goods, property, services or anything of value where the credit card or debit card was obtained or retained in violation of NRS 205.690 to 205.750, inclusive”…”
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Prior Bad Acts Over Brackeen’s objection, the trial court allowed into evidence testimony that Brackeen had helped himself to the Miller party’s pizza and beer at the Round Table Pizza Parlor before helping himself to some personal property in the vehicles in the pizza parlor…”
Bryant v. State, 721 P.2d 364 (Nev. 1986).
“15336 Appellant Bryant entered a guilty plea to one count of obtaining or possessing a credit card without the cardholder’s consent, in *273 violation of NRS 205.690. Shortly after he entered his plea, Bryant filed a motion to set aside his plea, which was denied by the district…”
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The State subsequently charged appellant with possession of a credit card without cardholder's consent, in violation of NRS 205.690, and attempted fraudulent use of a credit card, in violation of NRS 205.”
Marshall v. State, 603 P.2d 283 (Nev. 1979).
· cites it 2× “1 Although NRS 205.690(3) creates a presumption that a person possessing two or more credit cards issued in the name or names of another person or persons is presumed to possess *804 them with the knowledge that they have been stolen and with the intent to defraud, such…”
Stanfill v. State, 660 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 10× “Any person who, with intent to defraud: (a) Uses a credit card for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, services or anything of value where such credit card was obtained or retained in violation of NRS 205.690 to 205.750, inclusive, or where such person knows the…”
Long v. State, 853 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 2× “2d 59 (1988), the appellant had been convicted of possession of a credit card without the consent of the owner, a violation of NRS 205.690(3). The district court had instructed the jury pursuant to NRS 205.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Killman, 691 P.2d 434 (Nev. 1984).
“Any person who, with intent to defraud: (a) Uses a credit card for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, services or anything of value where such credit card was obtained or retained in violation of NRS 205.690 to 205.750, inclusive, or where such person knows the…”
Stanfill v. State, 665 P.2d 1146 (Nev. 1983).
“OPINION ON REHEARING Per Curiam: Appellant was convicted of possession of a stolen credit card, a felony under NRS 205.690(2). We affirmed in part, and remanded for a new sentence, in Stanfill v.”
Oliver (Vaneshia) v. State (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 4× “220(1); NRS 205.690; NRS 205.760(1). Oliver neither alleges that those statutes are unconstitutional, nor has she shown that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes committed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.690(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.690(2) — 8 cases
Hector Mancilla-Delafuente v. Loretta E. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2015).
“As the element of intent to defraud applies to all conduct proscribed by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.690 (2), we do not proceed to the modified categorical approach.”
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
“Prior Bad Acts Over Brackeen’s objection, the trial court allowed into evidence testimony that Brackeen had helped himself to the Miller party’s pizza and beer at the Round Table Pizza Parlor before helping himself to some personal property in the vehicles in the pizza parlor…”
Stanfill v. State, 660 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1983).
“Any person who, with intent to defraud: (a) Uses a credit card for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, services or anything of value where such credit card was obtained or retained in violation of NRS 205.690 to 205.750, inclusive, or where such person knows the…”
Stanfill v. State, 665 P.2d 1146 (Nev. 1983).
“OPINION ON REHEARING Per Curiam: Appellant was convicted of possession of a stolen credit card, a felony under NRS 205.690(2). We affirmed in part, and remanded for a new sentence, in Stanfill v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.690(3) — 4 cases
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
“Prior Bad Acts Over Brackeen’s objection, the trial court allowed into evidence testimony that Brackeen had helped himself to the Miller party’s pizza and beer at the Round Table Pizza Parlor before helping himself to some personal property in the vehicles in the pizza parlor…”
Marshall v. State, 603 P.2d 283 (Nev. 1979).
“1 Although NRS 205.690(3) creates a presumption that a person possessing two or more credit cards issued in the name or names of another person or persons is presumed to possess *804 them with the knowledge that they have been stolen and with the intent to defraud, such…”
Long v. State, 853 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1993).
“2d 59 (1988), the appellant had been convicted of possession of a credit card without the consent of the owner, a violation of NRS 205.690(3). The district court had instructed the jury pursuant to NRS 205.”
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.