deception - False statements or pretenses - Confidence game - Penalty. Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain or attempt to obtain from any person, firm or corporation any money, property or valuable thing, of a value less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), by means or by use of any trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation or statement or pretense, or by any other means or instruments or device commonly called the "confidence game", or by means or use of any false or bogus checks, or by any other written or printed or engraved instrument or spurious coin, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Added by Laws 1967, c. 94, § 1, emerg. eff. April 20, 1967. Amended by Laws 1982, c. 277, § 1, operative Oct. 1, 1982; Laws 2001, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 1, emerg. eff. Oct. 8, 2001; State Question No. 780, Initiative Petition No. 404, § 13, adopted at General Election held on November 8, 2016, eff. July 1, 2017; Laws 2021, c. 101, § 1, emerg. eff. April 20, 2021. NOTE: Laws 2016, c. 221, § 4 repealed by Laws 2021, c. 101, § 2, emerg. eff. April 20, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case:
Dunaway v. State, 561 P.2d 103 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
Dunaway v. State, 561 P.2d 103 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
· cites it 5× “1971, § 51 and 21 O.S.1971, §§ 1541.1 and 1541.2. The jury found the defendant guilty, and his punishment was fixed at ten (10) years’ imprisonment.”
Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1 (Okla. 2008).
“In Gabler COCA held an employee stated a claim for wrongful discharge because (1) he could have believed his unauthorized reproduction of parking passes would subject him to criminal punishment in accordance with the terms of 21 O.S.1991 § 1541.1 (obtaining property by trick or…”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dobbs, 2004 OK 46 (Okla. 2004).
“¶ 80 In 1998, Johnson was charged, inter alia, with one count of Obtaining a Thing of Value by False Pretenses in violation of 21 O.S.1991 § 1541.1 and 1541.2 in connection with the sale of the water companies to the City.”
Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
“Title 21 O.S.2001, § 1541.1 applies not just to property whose ownership may be evidenced by documents of title, but also to intangible things with determinable value.”
United States v. Flonnory, 630 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2011).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1541.1 (2002). Obtaining money or property worth more than $1,000 through false pretenses is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”
Willis v. State, 2017 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
“After the hearing, the State dismissed the Attempting to Obtain Money under False Pretenses charge and re-filed the case under 21 O.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Warzyn, 624 P.2d 1068 (Okla. 1981).
“The intentional making of such checks constitutes a crime in the State of Oklahoma under the provisions of 21 O.S. §§ 1541.1, et seq., and, additionally, the intentional conduct of Respondent constitutes a violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6), quoted above.”
Broadway v. State, 818 P.2d 1253 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Title 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 1541.1, provides that it shall be a crime for any “person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain .”
Gabler v. Holder & Smith, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 107 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000).
“, 21 O.S.1991 § 1541.1. 145 H & S could not condition employment upon Darrell Gabler's agreement to violate eriminal law without being subject to a tortious claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.”
State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
“00 by False Pretenses (21 O.S.2001, §§ 1541.1 & 1541.2), Case No.”
Caudill v. State, 532 P.2d 63 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “1971, § 1503; and that said defendant committed the offense of Uttering a False and Bogus Check in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1541.1; (2) Defendant having given his authorization for repair work and said repair work being done, he thereby removed his car without permission from…”
Penn v. State, 684 P.2d 562 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“The substantive charges in this case were filed under the provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 1541.1, et seq. The State makes a prima facie ease by showing that the defendant obtained the thing of value for the checks; that the checks were presented and payment refused within thirty…”
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.