A. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly, with the intent to defraud, to obtain or attempt to obtain, for himself or for another, oil, electric, gas, water, telephone, telegraph, cable television or electronic communication service by the use of any false information, or in any case where such service has been disconnected by the supplier and notice of disconnection has been given.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain oil, electric, gas, water, telephone, telegraph, cable television or electronic communication service by the use of any scheme, device, means or method, or by a false application for service with intent to avoid payment of lawful charges therefor.
B1. It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain, or attempt to obtain, electronic communication service as defined in § 18.2-190.1 by the use of an unlawful electronic communication device as defined in § 18.2-190.1.
C. The word "notice" as used in subsection A shall be notice given in writing to the person to whom the service was assigned. The sending of a notice in writing by registered or certified mail in the United States mail, duly stamped and addressed to such person at his last known address, requiring delivery to the addressee only with return receipt requested, and the actual signing of the receipt for such mail by the addressee, shall be prima facie evidence that such notice was duly received.
D. Any person who violates any provisions of this section, if the value of service, credit or benefit procured is $1,000 or more, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony; or if the value is less than $1,000, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition, the court may order restitution for the value of the services unlawfully used and for all costs. Such costs shall be limited to actual expenses, including the base wages of employees acting as witnesses for the Commonwealth, and suit costs. However, the total amount of allowable costs granted hereunder shall not exceed $250, excluding the value of the service.
E. Any party providing oil, electric, gas, water, telephone, telegraph, cable television or electronic communication service who is aggrieved by a violation of this section may, in a civil proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, seek both injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of damages, including attorney fees and costs. In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the party aggrieved may recover an award of actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, for each action.
1978, c. 807; 1981, c. 197; 1992, c. 525; 1993, c. 439; 2002, c. 671; 2003, c. 354; 2018, cc. 764, 765; 2020, cc. 89, 401.
Notes of Decisions
Jha v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 258 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 10× “The trial court commented that Code § 18.2-187.1 “talks” only in terms of the value of the service and said: I conclude as a matter of law that so long as she’s saying that the value of the service is three hundred dollars, which is what she’s saying, that complies with the…”
Sylvestre v. Commonwealth, 391 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “1 made the unlawful use of or tampering with cable television service a Class 3 misdemeanor; Code § 18.2-187.1 prohibited obtaining oil, electric, gas, water, telephone, telegraph, or cable television service without payment.”
Hall v. Commonwealth, 342 S.E.2d 640 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Appellant was convicted of violating Code § 18.2-187.1 1 and raises two issues on this appeal.”
Penley v. Commonwealth, 655 S.E.2d 746 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “Appellant was convicted in a jury trial of obtaining utility service by fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he obtained utility services valued at more than $200 and that the trial court erred when it failed to…”
Linda Russell Lamb v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 16× “Linda Russell Lamb appeals her conviction of obtaining utility service without payment in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. On appeal, Lamb argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike because the evidence was insufficient to prove that she received notice…”
Freddie W. Robinson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 11× “was convicted following a jury trial of felony obtaining or attempting to obtain utility service by fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. On appeal, Robinson contends the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate the value of the services he stole or tried to steal was at least $200.”
David Eddie Lamb v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “David Eddie Lamb (“Lamb”) was convicted of fraudulently obtaining electric service in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1(A). 1 On appeal, Lamb argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that he obtained electric service by fraud, or that he had the specific intent…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-187.1(A) — 2 cases
David Eddie Lamb v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“David Eddie Lamb (“Lamb”) was convicted of fraudulently obtaining electric service in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1(A). 1 On appeal, Lamb argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that he obtained electric service by fraud, or that he had the specific intent…”
Linda Russell Lamb v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“Linda Russell Lamb appeals her conviction of obtaining utility service without payment in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. On appeal, Lamb argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike because the evidence was insufficient to prove that she received notice…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-187.1(B) — 2 cases
Jha v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 258 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“The trial court commented that Code § 18.2-187.1 “talks” only in terms of the value of the service and said: I conclude as a matter of law that so long as she’s saying that the value of the service is three hundred dollars, which is what she’s saying, that complies with the…”
Freddie W. Robinson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“was convicted following a jury trial of felony obtaining or attempting to obtain utility service by fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. On appeal, Robinson contends the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate the value of the services he stole or tried to steal was at least $200.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-187.1(C) — 1 case
Linda Russell Lamb v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“Linda Russell Lamb appeals her conviction of obtaining utility service without payment in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. On appeal, Lamb argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike because the evidence was insufficient to prove that she received notice…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-187.1(D) — 1 case
Penley v. Commonwealth, 655 S.E.2d 746 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Appellant was convicted in a jury trial of obtaining utility service by fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-187.1. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he obtained utility services valued at more than $200 and that the trial court erred when it failed to…”
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.