CREDIT CARD CRIMES:
FALSE STATEMENTS MADE IN PROCURING ISSUANCE OF CREDIT
CARD
(N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6b) model jury charge
Count
of the indictment charges the defendant with
the crime of making false statements in procuring the issuance of a credit
card.
(Read Count of the indictment.)
The
Statute on which this count of the indictment is based reads in pertinent part
as follows:
A person who makes or causes to be made, either directly
or indirectly, any false statement in writing, knowing it to be false and with
intent that it be relied on, respecting his identity or that of any other
person, firm, or corporation, or his financial condition or that of any other
person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of procuring the issuance of a
credit card is guilty of a crime.
In order
for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant made, or caused to
be made, either directly or indirectly, a false statement.
2. That the defendant made or caused such
statement to be made in writing.
3. That the false statement concerned the
defendant’s identity,
-or-
that the false statement concerned the identity of any
other person, firm or corporation,
-or-
that the false statement concerned the defendant’s
financial condition or the financial condition of any other person, firm, or
corporation;
4. That the defendant knew such statement
to be false;
5. That the defendant intended that
someone else would rely upon the false statement; and
6. That the defendant’s purpose was to
procure the issuance of a credit card by means of such false statement.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant made, or caused to be made, either directly or indirectly, a false
statement.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant made or caused such statement to be made in writing.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
false statement concerned the defendant’s identity,
-or-
that the false statement concerned the identity of any
other person, firm or corporation
-or-
that the false statement concerned the defendant’s
financial condition or the financial condition of any other person, firm or
corporation.
The
fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knew such statement to be false.
A
person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware
that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct is he/she is aware
that his/her conduct is of that nature.
“Knowing,” “with knowledge” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by
inferences from conduct, words or acts.
It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or witnesses who
could testify that the defendant acted knowingly.
The
fifth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant intended that someone else would rely upon the false statement
believing that the matters therein contained are true.
A
person acts with “intent” when he/she does an act
with purpose. A person acts purposely
with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause
such a result. A person acts purposely
with respect to attendant circumstances if he/she is aware of
the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if he/she acts with
design, with a purpose, with a particular objective, if the individual means to
do what he/she does.
Purpose
is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by
inferences from conduct, words or acts.
It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or witnesses who
could testify that the defendant acted purposely.
The
sixth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant’s purpose was to procure the issuance of a credit card.
“Credit
card” means any tangible or intangible instrument or device issued with or
without a fee by an issuer that can be used, alone or in connection with
another means of account access, in obtaining money, goods, services or
anything else of value on credit, including credit cards, credit plates,
account numbers, or any other means of account access.
“Issuer”
means the business organization or financial institution which issues a credit
card or its duly authorized agent.
If
you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each and every one
of these elements as I have explained them, then you must find the defendant
guilty of this offense.
If you
find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this offense.