CALCRIM No. 1950. Sale or Transfer of Access Card or Account Number (Pen. Code, § 484e(a))
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)
Download PDF
B. ACCESS CARD FRAUD
1950.Sale or Transfer of Access Card or Account Number (Pen.
Code, § 484e(a))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (selling[,]/ [or]
transferring[,]/ [or] conveying) an access card [in violation of Penal Code
section 484e(a)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant (sold[,]/ [or] transferred[,]/ [or] conveyed) an
access card;
2. The defendant did so without the consent of the cardholder or the
issuer of the card;
AND
3. When the defendant (sold[,]/ [or] transferred[,]/ [or] conveyed)
the access card, (he/she) intended to defraud.
An access card is a card, plate, code, account number, or other means of
account access that can be used, alone or with another access card, to
obtain (money[,]/ [or] goods[,]/ [or] services[,]/ [or] anything of value), or
that can be used to begin a transfer of funds[, other than a transfer
originated solely by a paper document].
[(A/An) <insert description, e.g., ATM card, credit card> is an
access card.]
Acardholder is someone who has been issued an access card [or who has
agreed with a card issuer to pay debts arising from the issuance of an
access card to someone else].
Acard issuer is a company [or person] [or the agent of a company or
person] that issues an access card to a cardholder.
[Selling means exchanging something for money, services, or anything of
value.]
Someone intends to defraud if he or she intends to deceive another
person either to cause a loss of (money[,]/ [or] goods[,]/ [or] services[,]/
[or] something [else] of value), or to cause damage to, a legal, financial,
or property right.
[For the purpose of this instruction, a person includes (a governmental
agency/a corporation/a business/an association/the body politic).]
51
[It is not necessary that anyone actually be defrauded or actually suffer
a financial, legal, or property loss as a result of the defendant’s acts.]
[The People allege that the defendant (sold[,]/ [or] transferred[,]/ [or]
conveyed) the following access cards: <insert description of
each card when multiple items alleged>. You may not find the defendant
guilty unless you all agree that the People have proved that the
defendant (sold[,]/ [or] transferred[,]/ [or] conveyed) at least one of these
cards and you all agree on which card (he/she) (sold[,]/ [or]
transferred[,]/ [or] conveyed).]
[If you find the defendant guilty of (selling[,]/ [or] transferring[,]/ [or]
conveying) an access card, you must then decide whether the value of the
access card was more than $950. If you have a reasonable doubt whether
the value of the access card was more than $950, you must find this
allegation has not been proved.]
New January 2006; Revised September 2020
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
If the prosecution alleges under a single count that the defendant sold or transferred
multiple cards, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity. (See
People v. Sutherland (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 602, 619, fn. 6 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 752].)
Give the last bracketed paragraph, inserting the items alleged. (See also Bench
Notes to CALCRIM No. 3500, Unanimity, discussing when instruction on unanimity
is and is not required.)
In the definition of “access card,” the court may give the bracketed portion that
begins with “other than a transfer” at its discretion. This statement is included in the
statutory definition of access card. (Pen. Code, § 484d(2).) However, the committee
believes it would rarely be relevant.
The court may also give the bracketed sentence stating “(A/An) is an
access card” if the parties agree on that point.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “For the purpose of this instruction” if
the evidence shows an intent to defraud an entity or association rather than a natural
person. (Pen. Code, § 8.)
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “It is not necessary” if the evidence
shows that the defendant did not succeed in defrauding anyone. (People v. Morgan
(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 796, 801 [296 P.2d 75].)
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 484e(a).
CALCRIM No. 1950 CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD
52
• Definitions. Pen. Code, § 484d.
• Intent to Defraud. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127
Cal.Rptr.2d 770]; People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735, 745 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 176].
• Intent to Defraud Entity. Pen. Code, § 8.
• Unanimity Instruction If Multiple Items. People v. Sutherland (1993) 17
Cal.App.4th 602, 619, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 752].
• Value Must Exceed $950 For Felony. People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th
903, 908-910 [215 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 391 P.3d 633].
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
Possession of Access Card With Intent to Sell (Pen. Code, § 484e(c)) may be a
lesser included offense. (But see People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224,
1245-1246 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150].)
RELATED ISSUES
Multiple Charges Based on Single Act
Prosecution under Penal Code section 484d et seq. does not preclude simultaneous
prosecution under other statutes for the same conduct. (People v. Braz (1997) 57
Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 553]; People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224,
1243-1244 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150].) Thus, the defendant may also be charged with
such offenses as burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), forgery (Pen. Code, § 470), grand theft
(Pen. Code, § 487), or telephone fraud (Pen. Code, § 502.7). (People v. Braz, supra,
57 Cal.App.4th at p. 8; People v. Butler, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1243-1244.)
However, Penal Code section 654 may preclude punishment for multiple offenses.
(People v. Butler, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 1248.)
Cloned Cellular Phone
“[T]he Legislature intended that the definition of access card be broad enough to
cover future technologies, the only limitation being on purely paper transactions. As
the evidence disclosed here, a cloned cellular phone is a sophisticated and unlawful
‘means of account access’ to the account of a legitimate telephone subscriber.”
(People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1244 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150].)
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 215-216.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.04[1], [2] (Matthew Bender).
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1950
53
© Judicial Council of California.
