Also known as: false pretense · false pretences · obtaining property by false pretenses
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An offense at common law arising when a defendant obtains title to the property of another by making a knowing false statement about a past or existing fact with the intent to defraud that person. The misrepresentation must concern a matter of fact rather than mere opinion or a promise of future conduct. Courts distinguish this offense from larceny by trick by determining whether the victim intended to convey title rather than mere custody or possession.
Caleb, a grain broker, told Nora that a distributor had already issued a written purchase order for her entire wheat crop. Nora signed over the warehouse receipts and full title to the wheat in reliance on that statement. Caleb knew the distributor had only requested a price quote. Because Nora intended to transfer ownership rather than temporary custody, Caleb obtained title through the misrepresentation.
Rafael told Lena that a bank had already approved a documented credit line naming his company as owner of record for cars on her lot. Lena signed over the certificates of title to Horizon Finance in reliance on the statement. Rafael knew the bank had sent only a conditional email. Lena's transfer of the titles shows she intended to pass ownership, satisfying the title element.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Martin told Evelyn that a hotel chain had already signed a binding contract to buy her lot at a premium. Evelyn executed and delivered a warranty deed conveying fee simple title to Martin's LLC. Martin knew the negotiations were only preliminary. Evelyn's delivery of the deed demonstrates her intent to transfer present ownership rather than custody.
An organization told prospective litigants that its lawyers would handle their cases without charge if they authorized suit. Several individuals signed authorization forms without ever meeting the lawyers. The statements induced the transfer of control over the claims. The recipients intended to convey authority equivalent to title in the litigation matters.
A developer told a purchaser that land was free of liens when he had in fact borrowed against it. The purchaser paid and took title in reliance on the representation. The developer knew the lien existed. The purchaser's payment and acceptance of the deed transferred ownership rather than mere possession.
A defendant presented a no-account check for $100 to a merchant who transferred cash in exchange. The defendant knew the account contained no funds. The merchant intended to convey ownership of the money rather than temporary custody. The transaction therefore satisfied the title requirement for the offense.
False pretenses requires the defendant to obtain title to the property, while larceny by trick requires only custody or possession. Courts determine which offense applies by examining what interest the victim intended to convey. When the victim transfers ownership documents such as warehouse receipts or deeds, title passes and the conduct constitutes false pretenses.
Supporting sources
Yes. The traditional common law rule requires a knowing false statement about a past or existing fact. A false promise of future conduct, even if made without present intent to perform, does not establish the offense.
Supporting sources
The defendant must intend to defraud the victim. This intent is shown when the defendant knowingly makes the false statement to induce the victim to transfer title and thereby expose the victim to a risk of loss.
Supporting sources
Yes. The victim must actually rely on the false statement when deciding to transfer title. If the victim investigates independently and proceeds despite discovering the truth, reliance is absent and the offense is not complete.
Supporting sources
…felonies. In 1964, 1966, and 1969 Helm was convicted of third-degree burglary. In 1972 he was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses. In 1973 he was convicted of grand larceny. And in 1975 he was convicted of third-offense driving while intoxicated. The record contains no details about the circumstances of any of these…