California Penal Code sections 484f and 484g cover credit card fraud. PC 484f makes it a crime to forge a credit card or possess a counterfeit access device. PC 484g covers using a stolen, forged, or revoked credit card to obtain goods or services. Credit card fraud cases often arise from retailer reports, bank investigations, or federal task forces, and frequently overlap with federal prosecution. This page covers the state-law framework and the defense angles.

PC 484f: Counterfeiting or possessing forged access devices

PC 484f covers two main conduct types: forging a credit card by altering a real card or making a counterfeit, AND possessing such a counterfeit with intent to defraud. The “intent to defraud” element is required for both conduct types. The statute is a wobbler with felony exposure of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years under PC 1170(h).

PC 484g: Use of stolen or forged credit card

PC 484g makes it a crime to use a credit card knowing it is stolen, forged, expired, revoked, or otherwise unauthorized, to obtain or attempt to obtain money, goods, or services. The knowledge element is critical. The prosecution must prove the defendant knew the card was unauthorized at the time of use.

$950 threshold and Prop 47

Under Proposition 47 (PC 490.2), credit card fraud under $950 in obtained value is generally a misdemeanor, with the same exclusions as other Prop 47 offenses (super-strike priors, PC 290 registration). Fraud over $950 remains a wobbler. The threshold analysis applies to the aggregate value obtained, which can sometimes be contested when multiple transactions are summed.

The federal overlay

Federal credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029) carries significantly higher exposure than state charges. Federal prosecution typically requires a federal nexus (interstate transmission, federal financial institution involvement, multi-state activity). State cases involving multi-jurisdiction activity, identity theft components, or large dollar amounts can be referred federally.

Common credit card fraud defenses

Lack of knowledge that the card was unauthorized. For PC 484g, the prosecution must prove the defendant knew the card was stolen, forged, expired, or revoked. A defendant who used a card believing it was authorized (gift from cardholder, joint authorization, mistake of fact) has a viable defense.

Authority to use. Family members, business partners, employees with corporate cards, and joint cardholders often have authority disputes. The scope-of-authorization analysis is fact-specific.

Identification challenges. Credit card fraud cases rely heavily on surveillance video, signature comparison, and CCTV identification. Defense investigation can challenge these identifications.

Mistake of fact about the value or status. Good-faith belief that the card was valid, that the cardholder had authorized the use, or that the transaction was within an established pattern can defeat the knowledge element.

Fourth Amendment suppression. Searches of phones, devices, and financial records must comply with the particularized probable-cause requirement. Overbroad warrants support suppression motions.

What to do right now

Credit card fraud investigations often involve banks, retailers, and federal task forces. Do not give a statement to investigators. Preserve text messages, emails, and other communications with the cardholder showing authorization. Federal referral risk is real in cases involving multiple transactions or interstate components.

The Law Office of Zak Fisher is a Los Angeles criminal defense practice. This page is general legal information, not legal advice for any specific matter. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case. No attorney-client relationship is formed without a signed engagement letter. Attorney Advertising. Zak Fisher, Esq., California Bar No. 332712.

Penal Code §§ 484f and 484g: Credit Card Fraud Defense