INTENT TO DEFRAUD BY PERSON AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH
MONEY, GOODS OR SERVICES
(FAILURE TO FURNISH ANYTHING OF VALUE) model jury charge
N.J.S.A.
2C:21-6e(2)
The defendant is charged in count of the indictment.
(Read Count of the Indictment)
The applicable section of the statute reads as follows:
A person who is authorized by an issuer to furnish money,
goods, services or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by
the cardholder, fails to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of
value which he represents in writing to the issuer that he has furnished 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 was authorized by an
issuer to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of value upon
presentation of a credit card by the cardholder.
2. That the defendant failed to furnish
money, goods, services or anything else of value which he/she represented
in writing to the issuer that he/she did furnish.
3. That the defendant acted knowingly.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant was authorized by an issuer to furnish money, goods, services or
anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by the cardholder.
“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.
“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.
“Issuer”
means the business organization or financial institution which issues a credit
card or its duly authorized agent.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant failed to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of value
which he/she represented
in writing to the issuer that he/she had
furnished.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that 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.
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.