Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Virginia Computer Crimes Act."

1984, c. 751.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts, 917 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2019).
Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts, 917 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2019). “In his amended complaint, Hately alleged that he "incurred actual damages by the illicit access because [he] was forced to incur damages in time invested, software purchases to track and prevent future access, and more[.”
Sylvestre v. Commonwealth, 391 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “(now Code § 18.2-152.1, et seq.), and designated computer time, services, and data as property that could be the subjects of larceny.”
Jaynes v. Com., 666 S.E.2d 303 (Va. 2008). · cites it 2× “3:1, the unsolicited bulk electronic mail (e-mail) provision of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Code §§ 18.2-152.1 through-152.15. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Estes Forwarding Worldwide LLC v. Cuellar, 239 F. Supp. 3d 918 (E.D. Va. 2017). · cites it 2× “; (Count 6) violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-152.1 et seq.; and (Counts 7 and 8) seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction, The Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.”
Perk v. Vector Resources Grp., Ltd., 485 S.E.2d 140 (Va. 1997). · cites it 2× “8 of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Code § 18.2-152.1 et seq., “computer data, computer programs, [and] computer software” are “personal property subject to embezzlement” for the purposes of Code § 18.”
Am. Online, Inc. v. CN Prods., Inc., 272 B.R. 879 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 3× “[6] Accordingly, It is hereby ORDERED that Uhrig's objection is OVERRULED. Thus, the November 30, 2001 Discovery Order issued is AFFIRMED.”
Goble v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 931 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “2d 303 (2008), the Supreme Court applied the immediate result theory to conclude the Commonwealth had jurisdiction to prosecute a person for violating the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Code §§ 18.2-152.1 through -152.15. Jaynes, from his home in North Carolina, sent unsolicited…”
21st Century Sys. v. Perot Sys. Govt. Svcs., 726 S.E.2d 236 (Va. 2012). · cites it 2× “ry duty against 21CSI, Ballard, Hopkins, Patrona, and Novak; Count III—breach of non-disclosure agreement against Dellinger and Fallone; Count IV—breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements against Fallone; *238 Count V—tortious interference with contract against…”
Unspam Tech., Inc. v. Andrey Chernuk, 716 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2013). “; and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.1 et seq.; as well as common law claims for conspiracy, negligence, and unjust enrichment.”
Spiker v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 228 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “2d 303 (2008), decided under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Code §§ 18.2-152.1 through -152.15. Addressing the jurisdiction of Virginia’s courts to punish a prohibited communication that originated outside the Commonwealth, the Court observed its prior holding that “‘[i]t has…”
Hackman v. Wilson (In re Hackman), 534 B.R. 867 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 3× “Count 72 alleges violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA), Va. Code §§ 18.2-152.1, et seq. Virginia Code Section 18.”
Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., 80 Va. Cir. 454 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va. Code §§ 18.2-152.1 et seq., defines “without authority,” such that a person acts without authority “when he knows or reasonably should know that he has no right, agreement, or permission or acts in a manner knowingly exceeding such right,…”
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.