If any person steal any bank note, check, or other writing or paper of value, whether the same represents money and passes as currency, or otherwise, or any book of accounts, for or concerning money or goods due or to be delivered, he shall be deemed guilty of larceny thereof, and may be charged for such larceny under § 18.2-95 or 18.2-96, and if convicted shall receive the same punishment, according to the value of the thing stolen, prescribed for the punishment of the larceny of goods and chattels. The provisions of this section shall be construed to embrace all bank notes and papers of value representing money and passing as currency, whether the same be the issue of this Commonwealth or any other state, or of the United States, or of any corporation, and shall include all other papers of value, of whatever description. In a prosecution under this section, the money due on or secured by the writing, paper or book, and remaining unsatisfied, or which in any event might be collected thereon, or the value of the property or money affected thereby, shall be deemed to be the value of the article stolen.
Code 1950, §§ 18.1-104, 18.1-105; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 2009, c. 591.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case:
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 614 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 614 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 30× “” She argues that at common law, a lottery ticket, like “credit cards, checks, and other papers,” were “dioses in action” and had no value beyond the paper on which they were written.”
Foster v. Commonwealth, 606 S.E.2d 518 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “"Indeed, no proof of its actual value was required, as the law deems it to be of the value expressed on its face." Whalen v.”
Burton v. Commonwealth, 708 S.E.2d 444 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “4 Burton contends the evidence was insufficient on three grounds. First, he argues no evidence proved the coins were taken without permission of the owner.”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 271 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “10 The Attorney General’s argument might have merit had Brown been charged with larceny of the vouchers under Code § 18.2-98, but on appeal, it can rise no higher than the charges the Commonwealth’s Attorney chose to bring and as discussed above, the record contains no evidence…”
Bruhn v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “1-333, Removing property from a safe-deposit box by a co-lessee; § 18.2-98, Larceny of checks; § 18.2-108, Receiving stolen goods; § 18.”
Tiffany Lauren Phillips v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “The Commonwealth responded that Code § 18.2-98 (which criminalizes the theft of “any bank note, check, or other writing or paper of value”) allowed the trial court to use the redemption value of the lottery ticket as its actual value.”
Stamps v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 337 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 14× “We affirm and hold that stealing a check in violation of Code § 18.2-98 is “like” concealing merchandise in violation of Code § 18.”
Cassandra Diane Kocher v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2 Code § 18.2-98 provides: If any person steal any bank note, check, or other writing or paper of value, whether the same represents money and passes as currency, or otherwise, or any book of accounts, for or concerning money or goods due or to be delivered, he shall be deemed…”
Steven Michael Friel v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Steven Michael Friel (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction for grand larceny of a check in violation of Code § 18.2-98. He contends the Commonwealth cannot prove he stole the check without employing the permissive inference that one in possession of recently stolen…”
Morton v. Commonwealth, 302 S.E.2d 27 (Va. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Elizabeth Morton was tried by the court, sitting without a jury, under an indictment charging her with larceny of a check belonging to Lucy Delaney and having a value in excess of $200, in violation of Code § 18.2-98. Finding her guilty as charged, the trial court sentenced…”
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.