N.M. Stat. § 30-16-33 (2026)

A. Fraudulent use of a credit card consists of a person obtaining anything of value,
with intent to defraud, by using:
    (1)    a credit card obtained in violation of Sections 30-16-25 through 30-16-38
NMSA 1978;

      (2)    a credit card that is invalid, expired or revoked;

      (3)    a credit card while fraudulently representing that the person is the
cardholder named on the credit card or an authorized agent or representative of the
cardholder named on the credit card; or

       (4)    a credit card issued in the name of another person without the consent of
the person to whom the card has been issued.

    B. Whoever commits fraudulent use of a credit card when the value of the property
or service obtained is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less in any consecutive six-
month period is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

    C. Whoever commits fraudulent use of a credit card when the value of the property
or service obtained is over two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than five
hundred dollars ($500) in any consecutive six-month period is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    D. Whoever commits fraudulent use of a credit card when the value of the property
or service obtained is over five hundred dollars ($500) but not more than two thousand
five hundred dollars ($2,500) in any consecutive six-month period is guilty of a fourth
degree felony.

    E. Whoever commits fraudulent use of a credit card when the value of the property
or service obtained is over two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more
than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in any consecutive six-month period is guilty of
a third degree felony.

    F. Whoever commits fraudulent use of a credit card when the value of the property
or service obtained is over twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in any consecutive six-
month period is guilty of a second degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-16-33, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 239, § 9; 2006, ch. 29,
§ 11.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2006, provided in Subsection A that fraudulent
use of a credit card consists of a person obtaining anything of value with intent to
defraud by using a credit card; changed the 1953 statutory references in Paragraph (1)
of Subsection A to the NMSA 1978; replaced the former Subsection B, which provided
that if the value of things obtained exceeds $300 in a consecutive six months period, the
offense was a third degree felony with new Subsections B through F providing separate
penalties for fraudulent use of a credit card depending on the value of the property or
service obtained.

Definition of credit card. — An electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card issued to a
public assistance recipient is not a credit card under Section 30-16-33 NMSA 1978,
State v. Martinez, 2001-NMCA-099, 131 N.M. 254, 34 P.3d 643.

Section 30-16-33 NMSA 1978 is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Castillo,
2011-NMCA-046, 149 N.M. 536, 252 P.3d 760, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-004, 150
N.M. 648, 264 P.3d 1171.

Debit card. — Debit cards, which are tied to individual checking accounts, as opposed
to lines of credit or guarantee of payment by the issuing bank, is not a "credit card" for
purposes of Section 30-16-33 NMSA 1978. State v. Castillo, 2011-NMCA-046, 149 N.M.
536, 252 P.3d 760, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-004, 150 N.M. 648, 264 P.3d 1171.

Each use separate offense. — Section 30-16-32 NMSA 1978 punishes each
fraudulent signature. This indicates that the legislature intended to punish each use of a
credit card under this section, not the continuing possession and usage of one card.
State v. Salazar, 1982-NMCA-077, 98 N.M. 70, 644 P.2d 1059.

Sufficient evidence of conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card. —
Where defendant was convicted of fourth-degree fraudulent use of a credit card (over
$500) and conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card, and where defendant
claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for conspiracy,
arguing that the state did not present direct or circumstantial evidence from which the
jury could determine that an agreement was reached with another person, there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's determination that defendant
agreed with at least one other person to commit fraudulent use of a credit card where,
at trial, the state admitted into evidence the receipts for nine unauthorized credit card
transactions made over the course of five consecutive days and offered testimony that
defendant appeared in surveillance footage conducting one of the credit card
transactions and used the same job identifier for her purchase as did another
unauthorized user of the credit card in a separate transaction. From this evidence, a
rational jury could reasonably infer that there was some level of agreement and
coordination among the users of the credit card based on the use of the same job
identifier in multiple transactions, that defendant must have received the credit card
from another unauthorized user of the credit card because she used the credit card to
make a purchase one day after it was used in the first transaction by another person,
and that defendant must have given the credit card to another person who used the
credit card three more times in the two days after defendant used the credit card. State
v. Herrera, 2024-NMCA-025, cert. denied.

Consent. — Consent is not an essential element of the crime defined in Subsection
A(3) of this section. State v. Lopez, 1973-NMCA-148, 85 N.M. 742, 516 P.2d 1125.
Admissibility of related incident. — In prosecution for charging purchase on credit
card belonging to another, admission of testimony of a subsequent attempt to charge
additional purchases on the following day at the same store was not erroneous, as the
second incident was strong evidence of defendant's intent and his plan, and the
concurrence of time, place and modus operandi also tended to establish the identity of
the accused. State v. Lopez, 1973-NMCA-148, 85 N.M. 742, 516 P.2d 1125.

Opinion evidence on intent. — It was error to allow store employee who dealt with
defendant to express opinion on whether he had reason to believe that defendant
intended to defraud the establishment, but considering the strong evidence in the
record, this error was not prejudicial. State v. Lopez, 1973-NMCA-148, 85 N.M. 742,
516 P.2d 1125.

Arrest valid. — Where arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that person
arrested had committed the crime of misusing an expired credit card, the arrest was
valid. Stone v. United States, 385 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 966,
88 S. Ct. 2038, 20 L. Ed. 2d 880 (1968).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Successful negotiation of commercial
transaction as element of state offense of credit card fraud or false pretense in use of
credit card, 106 A.L.R.5th 701.