NRS
205.760 Fraudulent use of credit card or debit card, or identifying
description of credit account or debit card; presumption of knowledge of
revocation of credit card or debit card.
1. Unless a greater penalty is provided
pursuant to NRS 205.222 for a violation
of subsection 2 of NRS 205.220, a person
who, with the intent to defraud:
(a) Uses 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, or where the person
knows the credit card or debit card is forged or is the expired or revoked
credit card or debit card of another;
(b) Uses the number or other identifying physical
or electronic description of a credit account, customarily evidenced by a
credit card or the number or other identifying physical or electronic
description of a debit card, to obtain money, goods, property, services or
anything of value without the consent of the cardholder; or
(c) Obtains money, goods, property, services or
anything else of value by representing, without the consent of the cardholder,
that the person is the authorized holder of a specified card or that the person
is the holder of a card where the card has not in fact been issued,
Ê is guilty of
a public offense and shall be punished for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to any other
penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
2. Unless a greater penalty is provided
pursuant to NRS 205.222 for a violation
of subsection 2 of NRS 205.220, a person
who, with the intent to defraud, uses a credit card or debit card to obtain
money, goods, property, services or anything of value where the credit card or
debit card was issued in his or her name and which the person knows is revoked
or expired, or when the person knows he or she does not have sufficient money
or property with which to pay for the extension of credit or to cover the debit
from the account linked to his or her debit card, shall be punished, where the
amount of money or the value of the goods, property, services or other things
of value so obtained in any 6-month period is:
(a) One hundred dollars or more, for a category D
felony as provided in NRS 193.130. In
addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
(b) Less than $100, for a misdemeanor.
3. A person is presumed to have knowledge
of the revocation of a credit card or debit card 4 days after notice of the
revocation has been mailed to the person by registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested, at the address set forth on the credit card or debit
card or at the person’s last known address. If the address is more than 500
miles from the place of mailing, notice must be sent by airmail. If the address
is located outside the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the
Canal Zone and Canada, notice may be presumed to have been received 10 days
after the mailing.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
361; A 1979,
1452; 1985,
1457; 1987,
1192; 1991,
156; 1995,
1233; 1999,
49; 2009,
172)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case:
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 7× “The issue presented depends on an interpretation of NRS 205.760. Questions of statutory construction are reviewed by this *32 court de novo.”
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 4× “690, and attempted fraudulent use of a credit card, in violation of NRS 205.760 and 193.330. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his confession on the grounds that it was coerced and was therefore inadmissible, but the district court denied this motion, concluding…”
Jezdik v. State, 110 P.3d 1058 (Nev. 2005).
“3 NRS 205.760. 4 NRS 205.060. 5 See Feazell v.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Killman, 691 P.2d 434 (Nev. 1984).
· cites it 2× “NRS 205.760 provides in part that: 1. 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.”
Stanfill v. State, 660 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Under the statutory scheme, however, Stanfill could also have been charged with violating NRS 205.760. This statute requires proof of essentially the same elements as NRS 205.”
Hamm v. Sheriff, 523 P.2d 1301 (Nev. 1974).
· cites it 3× “206, to hold appellant for trial on the felony charge of fraudulent use of a credit card (NRS 205.760). 1 *254 The information charged that on February 19, 1973, Carl Hamm made unauthorized purchases of a combined value of more than $100.”
Oliver (Vaneshia) v. State (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Oliver (Vaneshia) v. State (Nev. 2022).
“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.”
Augello (Christopher) v. State C/W 64779 (Nev. 2014).
“130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable by prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.760(1) (fraudulent use of a credit card punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not allege that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A those statutes are unconstitutional or that the…”
Augello (Christopher) v. State C/W 64779 (Nev. 2014).
“130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable by prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.760(1) (fraudulent use of a credit card punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not allege that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A those statutes are unconstitutional or that the…”
Owens (Justin) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“We conclude that the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Owens committed burglary, theft, and the fraudulent use of a credit or debit card, see NRS 205.”
Weinstein v. Sheriff, 509 P.2d 825 (Nev. 1973).
“OPINION Per Curiam: This appeal from the denial of pre-trial habeas relief challenges the sufficiency and validity of the evidence on which the grand jury indicted appellant for the fraudulent use of credit cards in violation of NRS 205.760. The challenge is without merit.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.760(1) — 8 cases
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
“The issue presented depends on an interpretation of NRS 205.760. Questions of statutory construction are reviewed by this *32 court de novo.”
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
“690, and attempted fraudulent use of a credit card, in violation of NRS 205.760 and 193.330. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his confession on the grounds that it was coerced and was therefore inadmissible, but the district court denied this motion, concluding…”
Stanfill v. State, 660 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1983).
“Under the statutory scheme, however, Stanfill could also have been charged with violating NRS 205.760. This statute requires proof of essentially the same elements as NRS 205.”
Oliver (Vaneshia) v. State (Nev. 2022).
“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.”
Oliver (Vaneshia) v. State (Nev. 2022).
“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. § 205.760(1)(a) — 1 case
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
“The issue presented depends on an interpretation of NRS 205.760. Questions of statutory construction are reviewed by this *32 court de novo.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.760(2) — 1 case
Hamm v. Sheriff, 523 P.2d 1301 (Nev. 1974).
“206, to hold appellant for trial on the felony charge of fraudulent use of a credit card (NRS 205.760). 1 *254 The information charged that on February 19, 1973, Carl Hamm made unauthorized purchases of a combined value of more than $100.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.760(2)(b) — 2 cases
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Killman, 691 P.2d 434 (Nev. 1984).
“NRS 205.760 provides in part that: 1. 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.”
Stanfill v. State, 660 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1983).
“Under the statutory scheme, however, Stanfill could also have been charged with violating NRS 205.760. This statute requires proof of essentially the same elements as NRS 205.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.760(l)(a) — 1 case
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
“The issue presented depends on an interpretation of NRS 205.760. Questions of statutory construction are reviewed by this *32 court de novo.”
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.