CREDIT CARD CRIMES:
INTENT OF CARDHOLDER TO DEFRAUD
(FALSE REPRESENTATION AS CARDHOLDER)
N.J.S.A.
2C:21-6d(2) model jury charge
The defendant is charged with Credit
Card Theft. Specifically,
(Read Count of Indictment)
The applicable section of the
statute reads as follows:
A person, who, with intent to defraud the issuer, a
person or organization providing money, goods, services or anything else of
value, or any other person . . . obtains money, goods, services or anything
else of value by representing without the consent of the cardholder, that he/she
is the holder of a specified card or by representing that he/she is the holder
of a card and such card has not in fact been issued, is guilty of a crime.
In order
to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant obtained money,
goods, services, or anything else of value by representing, without the consent
of the cardholder that he/she is the holder of a specified card and such card has not in fact been
issued;
2. That the defendant acted knowingly;
3. That the defendant had the intent to
defraud the issuer, a person or organization providing money, goods, services
or anything else of value, or any other person.
The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant obtained money, goods, services, or anything else of value by representing,
without the consent of the cardholder that he/she
is the holder of a specified card or by representing that he/she
is the holder of the specified card and that such card has not in fact been
issued.
“Consent”
is the voluntary agreement of the cardholder to the use of the card.
“Cardholder”
means the person or organization named on the face of a credit card to whom or
for whose benefit the credit card is issued by an issuer.
“Credit
card” means any tangible or intangible instrument or device issued with or
without a fee by an issuer, a person or organization providing money, goods,
services or anything else of value, or any other person, 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.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the
defendant acted knowingly.
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 if 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
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant had the intent to defraud the issuer, a person or organization
providing money, goods, services or anything else of value, or any other
person.
A
person acts “with intent” when he/she acts 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.
“To
defraud” means to deprive a person of property or any interest, estate, or
right by deceit or artifice, to cheat.
If you
find that the State has proven all of the above elements beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of the crime charged.
If,
however, you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then find the defendant not guilty.
