(1) A person is guilty of criminal possession of credit card forgery devices when:
(a) He is a person other than the cardholder and possesses two or more incomplete credit cards, with intent to complete them without the consent of the issuer; or
(b) He possesses, with knowledge of its character, machinery, plates or any other contrivance designed to reproduce instruments purporting to be credit cards of an issuer who has not consented to the preparation of such credit cards.
(2) A credit card is incomplete if part of the matter, other than the signature of the cardholder, which an issuer requires to appear on the credit card before it can be used by a cardholder, has not yet been stamped, embossed, imprinted or written upon.
Conviction of criminal possession of credit card forgery devices is punishable as a Class 6 felony.
Code 1950, § 18.1-125.7; 1968, c. 480; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Notes of Decisions
Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 682 S.E.2d 50 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “[14] Appellant suggests that the Commonwealth might more appropriately have charged him with possession of credit card forgery devices, in violation of Code § 18.2-196. [15] Because we hold that the Commonwealth failed to establish the requisite intent under Code § 18.”
Chezmin Brittany Suter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 796 S.E.2d 416 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” Suter was tried and convicted pursuant to Code § 18.2-196). While Code § 18.2-19 establishes the punishment for an accessory after the fact based upon the underlying crime, the statute does not alter the common-law definition of what constitutes an accessory after the fact.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-196(1)(b) — 1 case
Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 682 S.E.2d 50 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
“[14] Appellant suggests that the Commonwealth might more appropriately have charged him with possession of credit card forgery devices, in violation of Code § 18.2-196. [15] Because we hold that the Commonwealth failed to establish the requisite intent under Code § 18.”
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.