Also known as: obtain property by false pretenses · obtained property by false pretenses · obtaining property under false pretenses · obtains property by false pretenses · false pretenses · false pretence · theft by false pretenses
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common law theft offense committed when a defendant obtains title to another's property by a knowing false statement of a past or existing fact made with intent to defraud.
Oliver Okeke told Lena that a title company had already issued a clean report confirming all back taxes and liens were paid on her apartment building. No such report existed and liens remained. Relying on the statement, Lena executed and delivered a deed conveying full ownership to Oliver. The transfer of title through the knowing misrepresentation of an existing fact establishes the offense.
Lena falsely told Oliver and Priya that her former employer had already assigned her rights in a nearly identical codebase. Relying on the statement about existing rights, the founders signed documents transferring full ownership of their software tool to Lena. She later sold the tool. The passage of title induced by the knowing factual misrepresentation satisfies the elements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Marcos told elderly client Helen Lee that a regional bank had already confirmed his fund's prior outperformance with similar bonds. No such confirmation or history existed. Relying on the statement, Lee signed documents transferring full title to her municipal bonds into Marcos's fund. The knowing misrepresentation of past facts that induced the title transfer completes the offense.
Jerry Helm presented a no-account check to obtain money from a merchant. The merchant transferred funds in reliance on the implied representation of sufficient funds. Helm obtained title to the money through the knowing false statement about an existing fact. The transaction meets the requirements of the offense.
Defendants used the mail to induce victims to transfer title to property by misrepresenting material facts about an investment scheme. Victims executed documents conveying ownership in reliance on the knowing false statements. The acquisition of title through the fraudulent misrepresentations establishes the offense.
A defendant obtained title to goods by falsely stating an existing fact about payment or ownership rights. The victim transferred ownership documents in reliance on the knowing misrepresentation made with intent to defraud. The resulting acquisition of title satisfies the elements of the offense.
The key distinction is whether the victim intended to convey title or only possession or custody. False pretenses requires that the defendant obtain title through the misrepresentation, while larceny by trick applies when the victim intends to transfer only possession.
Supporting sources
Yes. The misrepresentation must be about a past or existing fact. A false promise of future performance, even without present intent to perform, does not satisfy the element at common law.
Supporting sources
No. It is sufficient that the defendant intentionally induces a transfer of title by a knowing misrepresentation of a past or existing fact with intent to defraud, and the victim relies on the misrepresentation.
Supporting sources
The defendant must act with intent to defraud the victim. The knowing false statement must be made for the purpose of causing the victim to transfer title.
Supporting sources
…of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rummel v. Estelle, 498 F. Supp. 793 (WD Tex. 1980). Rummel then pleaded guilty to theft by false pretenses and was sentenced to time served under the terms of a plea-bargaining agreement. Two-Bit Lifer Finally Freed — After Pleading Guilty, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 15, 1980, p. 2, col. 3.