CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 67953
...h of store merchandise by using a customer's credit card to purchase merchandise without the knowledge of the cardholder. The state first charged McDonald in county court with fraud by a person authorized to provide goods or services, a violation of section 817.62, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...Agreeing with McDonald, the trial court granted her motion to dismiss. The issue on appeal is whether the state can charge McDonald with both grand theft pursuant to section
812.014, Florida Statutes (1993), and credit card fraud by a person authorized to provide goods and services pursuant to section
817.62, Florida Statutes (1993), without violating double jeopardy prohibitions....
...he credit card is forged, expired, revoked (5) penalties based on value of goods, money or service provided (a) under $300.00, as provided in section
775.082 or
775.083 *1319 (b) over $300.00, as provided in section
775.082,
775.083, or
775.084. See §
817.62, Fla....
...it card arising out of a single act could stand because the grand theft charge contained a monetary element which was not an element in the fraudulent use of a credit card charge. However, we conclude that Wolf is not applicable to this case because section 817.62, under which McDonald was charged, sets forth a monetary value....
...ptions listed in Chapter 775, Florida Statutes, which restrict the application of a strict Blockburger test, then we must enforce these exceptions when they apply. Affirmed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 817.62, Florida Statutes (1993) provides: (1) ILLEGALLY OBTAINED OR ILLEGALLY POSSESSED CREDIT CARD; FORGED, REVOKED, OR EXPIRED CREDIT CARD.A person who is authorized by an acquirer to furnish money, goods, services, or anything else of va...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6194
...by the use of any credit card ... of another without the authority of the person to whom such card . . . was issued. . . . ” The portion of the State Credit Card Crime Act of 1967 on which the defendant predicates his argument in pertinent part states: “817.62....
...ection. . . ." We reject the appellant’s argument that the latter statute repeals by implication the former because — except to the extent hereinafter noted — neither one is inconsistent with the other. The State Credit Card Crime Act of which 817.62(2), F....
...his state which presently applies or may in the future apply to any transaction which violates this part, unless such provision is inconsistent with the terms of this part.” We note, however, that the penalty provisions which attend a violation of Section
817.62(2), F.S.1969, F.S.A., are markedly different from and less severe than those attendant upon a violation of Section 817.-481, F.S.1969, F.S.A. See Section 817.-481 (3) (a) and compare Section
817.67, F. S.1969, F.S.A. Because of this inconsistency, we hold that the penalty provisions which pertain to a violation of Section
817.62(2), F.S.1969, F.S.A., superseded the penalty provisions of Section
817.481, F.S....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2241, 2000 WL 266679
...l of their motions to dismiss. On appeal they present three issues: that the trial court erred in denying the motions to dismiss because the undisputed facts were insufficient to show that they had violated the illegal credit card factoring statute, section 817.62(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1995); that they were entrapped as a matter of law; and that the illegal credit card factoring statute is unconstitutional....
...Because the first issue is dispositive of the case against them, we have no need to reach the entrapment or constitutional issues. The facts of this case are straightforward but the successful navigation of the facts through the shoals of the language of section 817.62(3)(b), as well as the corn- *661 mercial transactions that the statute seeks to regulate, is not as easily accomplished....
...d account number by a cardholder, to remit to the said SunTrust Bank a credit card transaction record of sale that was not made by such authorized person or his agent or employee, to wit: record of charge numbers ..., in violation of Florida Statute
817.62(3)(b) and/or On or about the 23rd day of April, 1996 in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, to wit: Hillsborough County, RUTH LYNN PADILLA did conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, as defined in Florida Statute
896.101...
...l transaction represented the proceeds of some form of specified unlawful activity, to wit: prostitution related offenses as prohibited by Florida Statute 796.02,
796.04,
796.05 or
796.07 and/or credit card factoring as prohibited by Florida Statute
817.62(3), and knowing that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the sources, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of the said specified unlaw *664 ful activity, in violation of Florida Statute
896.101(2)(a)2....
...hwhile. It is an economic decision made by the contracting parties. III. Illegal Credit Card Factoring under Florida Law The State charged the Appellants with violations of chapter 817, Fraudulent Practices, Part II, Credit Card Crimes, specifically section 817.62(3)(b). Section 817.62 provides as follows: 817.62....
...tream of commerce. Because SunTrust Bank is the “acquirer” in this case, Sunset Enterprises became the “factoring merchant” as explained in Dabbs . IV. Application of the Law to the Facts At issue in this case is the proper application of subsection 817.62(3)(b)....
...d never deals with the third-party-merchant. The third-party-merchant only deals with the “middleman” or the acquirer’s agent, i.e., the factoring merchant. This is the raison d’&tre of the credit card factoring business. The gravamen of section 817.62 as a whole, under our facts, is to protect Sun-Trust Bank, the acquirer, from fraud originating lower down the stream of commerce by those who come to it for financial services through credit card sales....
...Section
812.028, Florida Statutes (1995), precludes certain defenses to the crime of dealing in stolen property, such as the fact that the item in question is not really stolen. 4 This section enables a government-sponsored fencing reverse sting operation. In contrast, section
817.62(3)(b) has no “defenses precluded” section that specifically negates an essential element of the crime for purposes of a law enforcement sting....
...its merchant bank/acquirer, by being the unauthorized conduit for the third-party-merchant’s credit card slips. This is the fraudulent situation, like that described in Dabbs , where the missing authorization results in the crime prohibited by subsection 817.62(3)(b). Subsection 817.62(3)(b) does not even require any degree of mens rea on the part of the third-party-merchant, unlike the other subsections of section 817.62....
...The same information also charged a fourth defendant but she is not a party to this appeal. The merchant bank retains a "discount fee” for processing the transaction. . Because of the ambiguity as to which entity in this case is the acquirer under section 817.62(3)(b), the Appellants have argued that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them....
