Colorado’s Financial Transaction Device Crime Act, C.R.S. §§ 18-5-701 to 707, covers credit card, debit card, and similar device-based fraud. The two most commonly charged provisions are unauthorized use of a device and criminal possession of a blank device, and each is penalized differently.
Unauthorized Use of a Financial Transaction Device — C.R.S. § 18-5-702
A person commits this crime by using a financial transaction device to get cash, credit, property, or services, with intent to defraud, knowing the device has expired, been revoked or canceled, or that the use is unauthorized by the issuer or account holder. Classification follows the same dollar-value ladder as theft: a petty offense under $300, up through a class 2 felony at $1 million or more. Value is totaled across all unauthorized uses of a single device within a six-month window.
Criminal Possession or Sale of a Blank Device — C.R.S. § 18-5-705
Separately, possessing, receiving, or selling a blank financial transaction device — one that hasn’t yet been embossed or encoded with an account holder’s information — without the issuer’s authorization is its own crime: a class 6 felony for possessing one blank device, a class 5 felony for possessing two or more, a class 5 felony for delivering or selling one, and a class 3 felony for delivering or selling two or more.
Case Law That Shapes Device Fraud Defense
People v. Patton, 2016 COA 187, aff’d 2018 CO 67: The requirement that a defendant receive “notice” that a device has expired, been revoked, or canceled is not limited to notice given in person or in writing — those are just examples the statute offers, not an exhaustive list. Notice can be proven other ways.
People v. Pipkin, 762 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1988): The notice requirement applies to someone who has or had permission to use the device, not to someone using a device they knew was lost or stolen. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove a thief received formal notice that their use was unauthorized.
People v. Jauch, 2013 COA 127; People v. Trujillo, 2015 COA 22: Unauthorized device use and identity theft are not the same conduct for equal protection purposes — identity theft specifically requires proving the card belonged to the actual victim, which this statute does not require.
Possible Defenses
No notice of unauthorized status — if you reasonably believed you had authorization to use the device, that defeats the intent-to-defraud element.
Consent — actual authorization from the account holder, even if informal, is a defense.
Device wasn’t actually “blank” — the possession charge requires the device to lack the account holder’s embossed or encoded information.
Value miscalculation — since classification depends on total value within a six-month window, disputing how that total was calculated can change the charge level entirely.
Charged With Credit Card or Device Fraud?
Financial transaction device charges can range from a misdemeanor to a serious felony depending on dollar value and what exactly you’re accused of possessing or using. Mile High Legal defends fraud charges across Colorado. Call now for a free, confidential case review.
