(A) No person, having devised a scheme to defraud, shall knowingly disseminate, transmit, or cause to be disseminated or transmitted by means of a wire, radio, satellite, telecommunication, telecommunications device, telecommunications service, or voice over internet protocol service any writing, data, sign, signal, picture, sound, or image with purpose to execute or otherwise further the scheme to defraud.
(B) No person, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, shall knowingly cause, directly or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any telecommunication service or voice over internet protocol service.
(C) Divisions (A) and (B) of this section do not apply to any of the following:
(1) A person who uses a telephone number that is identified as "unknown" or "blocked" or who leaves a message and includes the person's true identity;
(2) Any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a state, a county, or a political subdivision of a state;
(3) Any activity engaged in pursuant to a court order that specifically authorizes the use of caller identification manipulation.
(D) If an offender commits a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and the violation occurs as part of a course of conduct involving other violations of division (A) or (B) of this section or violations of, attempts to violate, conspiracies to violate, or complicity in violations of section 2913.02, 2913.04, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913.31, 2913.42, 2913.43, or 2921.13 of the Revised Code, the court, in determining the degree of the offense pursuant to division (E) of this section, may aggregate the value of the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victim of the fraud in the violations involved in that course of conduct. The course of conduct may involve one victim or more than one victim.
(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of telecommunications fraud. Except as otherwise provided in this division, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the fifth degree. If the value of the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victim of the fraud is one thousand dollars or more but less than seven thousand five hundred dollars, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victim of the fraud is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the third degree. If the value of the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victims of the fraud is one hundred fifty thousand dollars or more but less than one million dollars, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the second degree. If the value of the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victims of the fraud is one million dollars or more, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the first degree.
(2) If the victim of a violation of this section is an elderly person, disabled adult, active duty service member, or spouse of an active duty service member, telecommunications fraud is a felony of the fourth degree.
(F) As used in this section, "voice over internet protocol service" has the same meaning as in section 4927.01 of the Revised Code.
Last updated December 6, 2021 at 8:49 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: State v. Reeder, 2021 Ohio 2988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Reeder, 2021 Ohio 2988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד02(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the second degree, and one count of telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A) and (C), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Wharton, 2015 Ohio 5026 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5דWharton pleaded guilty to one count of telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of identity fraud in violation of R.”
State v. Reindl, 2021 Ohio 2586 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “02(A)(3), with a furthermore clause that the victim of the offense was an elderly person or disabled adult and the value of the property or services stolen is $37,500 or more and less than $150,000; and telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), with a furthermore…”
McGee v. East Ohio Gas Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 979 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 4דOhio Rev.Code § 2913.05(A). “Defraud” is defined as “[t]o knowingly obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another.”
State v. Mock, 2018 Ohio 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2ד02(A)(3) ; 6 counts of telecommunications fraud, violations of R.C. 2913.05(A) ; 1 count of identity theft, a violation of R.”
State v. Brown, 2024 Ohio 749 (Ohio 2024). “02; R.C. 2913.05 (telecommunications fraud). Thus, the required “theft offense” predicate for a robbery conviction is satisfied.”
State v. Burgett, 2019 Ohio 5348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2ד22(A), a first-degree misdemeanor, and telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced her to five years of community control, with mandatory psychotherapy treatment and restricted travel outside of Ohio.”
Kimber Baldwin Designs, LLC v. Silv Commc'ns, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 3d 670 (S.D. Ohio 2016). · cites it 4דFraud Claim Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct constitutes telecommunications fraud under the Ohio Telecommunications Fraud statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 2913.05. 3 Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot seek civil recovery for an alleged uncharged criminal act.”
Dottore v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., 2014 Ohio 25 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “In support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Vorys and its attorneys argued in part that the Dottore Plaintiffs had failed to plead qualifying predicate acts that would support a pattern of racketeering activity.”
State v. Claytor, 2022 Ohio 1938 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “” Relevant to the instant case, a theft offense includes telecommunications fraud under R.C. 2913.05(A), which provides that “[n]o person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services * *…”
State v. Holmes, 2026 Ohio 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 30דThe plain language of R.C. 2913.05, telecommunications fraud, does not require the victim to be deprived of something of value to support a conviction for telecommunications fraud.”
State v. Thompson, 2014 Ohio 202 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “49(B)(1)), charged that Thompson, without the express or implied consent of the victim, used personal identifying information of the victim to hold himself out to be the victim.”
State v. Reeder, 2021 Ohio 2988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “02(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the second degree, and one count of telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A) and (C), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Wharton, 2015 Ohio 5026 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Wharton pleaded guilty to one count of telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of identity fraud in violation of R.”
State v. Reindl, 2021 Ohio 2586 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “02(A)(3), with a furthermore clause that the victim of the offense was an elderly person or disabled adult and the value of the property or services stolen is $37,500 or more and less than $150,000; and telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), with a furthermore…”
McGee v. East Ohio Gas Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 979 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “Ohio Rev.Code § 2913.05(A). “Defraud” is defined as “[t]o knowingly obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another.”
State v. Mock, 2018 Ohio 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “02(A)(3) ; 6 counts of telecommunications fraud, violations of R.C. 2913.05(A) ; 1 count of identity theft, a violation of R.”
State v. Burgett, 2019 Ohio 5348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “22(A), a first-degree misdemeanor, and telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced her to five years of community control, with mandatory psychotherapy treatment and restricted travel outside of Ohio.”
State v. Holmes, 2026 Ohio 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “The plain language of R.C. 2913.05, telecommunications fraud, does not require the victim to be deprived of something of value to support a conviction for telecommunications fraud.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.05(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Holmes, 2026 Ohio 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “The plain language of R.C. 2913.05, telecommunications fraud, does not require the victim to be deprived of something of value to support a conviction for telecommunications fraud.”
State v. Holmes, 2026 Ohio 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “The plain language of R.C. 2913.05, telecommunications fraud, does not require the victim to be deprived of something of value to support a conviction for telecommunications fraud.”
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.