Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 5. Crimes Against Property » Article 7.1. Computer Crimes
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.3 (2026)

Computer fraud; penalty

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who uses a computer or computer network, without authority and:

1. Obtains property or services by false pretenses;

2. Embezzles or commits larceny; or

3. Converts the property of another;

is guilty of the crime of computer fraud.

If the value of the property or services obtained is $1,000 or more, the crime of computer fraud shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. Where the value of the property or services obtained is less than $1,000, the crime of computer fraud shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

1984, c. 751; 1985, c. 322; 2003, cc. 987, 1016; 2005, cc. 747, 761, 827, 837; 2018, cc. 764, 765; 2020, cc. 89, 401.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: State Analysis, Inc. v. Am. Fin. Servs. Assoc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 309 (E.D. Va. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Analysis, Inc. v. Am. Fin. Servs. Assoc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 309 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 13× “Count I: Violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.Code § 18.2-152.3 et seq., for using a computer or computer network without authority, and thereby obtaining property by false pretenses, embezzling or committing larceny, and/or converting StateScape’s property.”
Global Policy Partners, LLC v. Yessin, 686 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 16× “2-62(A), Va.Code § 18.2-152.3, and Va.Code § 18.2-152.”
Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. Va. 2010). · cites it 9× “Violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-152.3 et seq. 4. Lanham Act “reverse passing off,” 15 U.”
SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2005). · cites it 10× “and IX of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint because an entity can neither conspire nor combine with an agent under Virginia law; (6) whether to dismiss the common law tortious interference with contract or business relationship claim because an entity or person cannot interfere with…”
Space Sys./Loral, LLC v. Orbital Atk, Inc., 306 F. Supp. 3d 845 (E.D. Va. 2018). · cites it 4× “Count IV: Virginia Computer Crimes Act In Count IV, SSL alleges that Orbital violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act ("VCCA"), Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.3 (West 2017). To show a violation of the VCCA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant: (1) used a computer or…”
Dimaio v. Commonwealth, 621 S.E.2d 696 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Jeremy Dion DiMaio (appellant) was found guilty in a bench trial of computer fraud, computer trespass, embezzlement and attempted extortion in violation of Code §§ 18.2-152.3, 18.2-152.4, 1 18.2-111, and 18.”
A v. v. Iparadigms, 544 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 6× “iParadigms’ fourth counterclaim alleges violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.Code §§ 18.2-152.3 and 18.2-152.6, against Plaintiff A.”
Taylor Amil Wallace v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 896 S.E.2d 384 (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 119× “” Wallace was convicted of four counts of uttering a forged check, four counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, four counts of computer fraud, and one count of felony failure to appear, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-152.3, 18.2-172, 18.2-178, and 19.”
DiMaio v. Com., 636 S.E.2d 456 (Va. 2006). · cites it 6× “In this appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of value to support convictions for computer fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-152.3 and larceny in violation of Code § 18.”
Maxient, LLC v. Symplicity Corp., 63 F. Supp. 3d 592 (E.D. Va. 2014). · cites it 28× “At the time Rosciszewski was decided, Va. Code § 18.2-152.3 had only an intent element that the Fourth Circuit concluded was insufficient to qualitatively distinguish a claim under that section from a claim under the Copyright Act.”
Am. Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998). · cites it 3× “Count V: Violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act The facts presented to the Court establish that defendants violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.Code § 18.2-152.3(3), which provides that “[a]ny person who uses a computer or computer network without authority and…”
AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 496 (W.D. Va. 2013). · cites it 3× “” Va.Code § 18.2-152.3. The Act further provides that “any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation of any provision of this article .”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.3(1): 1 case
Maxient, LLC v. Symplicity Corp., 63 F. Supp. 3d 592 (E.D. Va. 2014). “At the time Rosciszewski was decided, Va. Code § 18.2-152.3 had only an intent element that the Fourth Circuit concluded was insufficient to qualitatively distinguish a claim under that section from a claim under the Copyright Act.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.3(3): 2 cases
Am. Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998). “Count V: Violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act The facts presented to the Court establish that defendants violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Va.Code § 18.2-152.3(3), which provides that “[a]ny person who uses a computer or computer network without authority and…”
Maxient, LLC v. Symplicity Corp., 63 F. Supp. 3d 592 (E.D. Va. 2014). “At the time Rosciszewski was decided, Va. Code § 18.2-152.3 had only an intent element that the Fourth Circuit concluded was insufficient to qualitatively distinguish a claim under that section from a claim under the Copyright Act.”
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.