Fraud, Forgery & Embezzlement

Va. Code §§ 18.2-111, 18.2-172, 18.2-178 and 18.2-192/195 — most of these are larceny in disguise

Class 1 misdemeanor to Class 4 felony
Primary statute: § 18.2-178
Last verified: 2026-08-10

1. Which Offence — and How It Is Graded

The fraud family at a glance

Conduct	Statute	Grade
Obtaining money or property by FALSE PRETENSE or token, with intent to defraud	§ 18.2-178	Deemed LARCENY — graded by value under § 18.2-95/§ 18.2-96
Obtaining by false pretense the SIGNATURE of a person to a writing, the false making of which would be forgery	§ 18.2-178	Class 4 felony
EMBEZZLEMENT — fraudulently using, disposing of, concealing or embezzling property received for another or by virtue of office, trust or employment	§ 18.2-111	Deemed LARCENY — "proof of embezzlement shall be sufficient to sustain the charge of larceny"
FORGERY of a writing other than a public record, to the prejudice of another's right — or UTTERING such a writing knowing it forged	§ 18.2-172	Class 5 felony
CREDIT CARD or gift card THEFT	§ 18.2-192	Grand larceny, "punishable as provided in § 18.2-95"
CREDIT CARD or gift card FRAUD	§ 18.2-195	Class 1 misdemeanor; Class 6 felony if the value is $1,000 or more IN ANY SIX-MONTH PERIOD
ISSUING A BAD CHECK with intent to defraud, knowing there are insufficient funds or credit	§ 18.2-181	Deemed LARCENY — Class 6 felony if the represented value is $1,000 or more; Class 1 misdemeanor below that

§ 18.2-168 covers forging PUBLIC records and is a separate, more serious offence — § 18.2-172 expressly excludes it.

Grand larceny under § 18.2-95 is reached by (i) larceny from the person of $5 or more, (ii) simple larceny not from the person of $1,000 or more, or (iii) larceny of any firearm regardless of value. It is punishable by one to 20 years or, in the discretion of the jury or court, up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500.

2. False Pretenses — § 18.2-178

"If any person obtain, by any false pretense or token, from any person, with intent to defraud, money, a gift certificate or other property that may be the subject of larceny, he shall be deemed guilty of larceny thereof; or if he obtain, by any false pretense or token, with such intent, the signature of any person to a writing, the false making whereof would be forgery, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony."

Elements

A false pretense or token It must be a false representation of an EXISTING FACT or a PAST EVENT — see the authorities below. A promise about the future is not a false pretense, however plainly it is broken.
Intent to defraud
Obtaining money, a gift certificate, or other property that may be the subject of larceny The property must be capable of being stolen — that limitation is in the text.

§ 18.2-178 — the elements and the boundary

Wynne v. Commonwealth 18 Va. App. 459, 460, 445 S.E.2d 160, 161, Court of Appeals of Virginia (published), 1994

binding

The four elements: (a) the accused intended to defraud; (b) a fraud actually occurred; (c) the accused used false pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and (d) the false pretenses induced the owner to part with his property.

Cunningham v. Commonwealth 219 Va. 399, 402, 247 S.E.2d 683, 685, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1978

binding

"An essential element of larceny by false pretenses is that both title to and possession of property must pass from the victim to the defendant." Quoted in Bray v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 417, 424 (1990). Davies v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 350, 352 (1992) states the converse: obtaining ownership rather than mere possession is what "distinguishes the offense of larceny by false pretenses from the offense of larceny [by trick]".

Watson v. Commonwealth 4 Va. App. 450, 452, 358 S.E.2d 735, 736, Court of Appeals of Virginia (published), 1987

binding

"The false pretense must be a false representation of an EXISTING FACT OR PAST EVENT." This is the commonest defence in the section: an unkept promise about what the defendant would do next is not a false pretense.

Parker v. Commonwealth 275 Va. 150, 154, 654 S.E.2d 580, 582, Supreme Court of Virginia, 2008

binding

Where several representations were made, "a conviction may be had if it is shown that ANY of the representations as to existing facts induced the complaining witness to part with his property" (quoting Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 61, 66 (1959)). The Commonwealth need not carry every representation it proves. ⚠️ Not the Parker on the stalking sheet — different case, same name.

Reid v. Commonwealth Rec. 0511-15-1 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016) (published), Court of Appeals of Virginia (published), 2016

binding

A LOAN PASSES TITLE, so money obtained by a lie and never repaid is false pretenses even though repayment was expected. Reid flagged down drivers, said his car had been towed, and borrowed $280 and $300 for a fee he never paid. That the victims stayed with him to make sure he used the money as promised did not keep title with them: he was "not using the money on their behalf or at their behest". AFFIRMED. Reporter cite 65 Va. App. 745.

Reid is also the clearest modern statement that larceny by trick is not a separate statutory offence, so the practical question is always whether title passed — not which label the file carries.

3. Embezzlement — § 18.2-111

The section reaches any person who "wrongfully and fraudulently use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle any money, bill, note, check, order, draft, bond, receipt, bill of lading or any other personal property, tangible or intangible, which he shall have received for another or for his employer, principal or bailor, or by virtue of his office, trust, or employment, or which shall have been entrusted or delivered to him by another or by any court, corporation or company."

What distinguishes it from larceny

The defendant came into possession LAWFULLY Received for another, or by virtue of office, trust or employment, or entrusted or delivered to him.
The wrong is in the subsequent use, disposal, concealment or embezzlement
Intangible personal property is expressly included

"Proof of embezzlement shall be sufficient to sustain the charge of larceny." The statute makes the pleading question easier than it looks.

§ 18.2-111 — entrustment and intent

Rooney v. Commonwealth 27 Va. App. 634, 644, Court of Appeals of Virginia (published), 1998

binding

To prove embezzlement "the Commonwealth need not establish the existence of a formal fiduciary relationship", but must show both that the defendant was entrusted with the property and that he had the specific intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Pittman v. Commonwealth Rec. 1572-17-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019) (published), Court of Appeals of Virginia (published), 2019

binding

AFFIRMED on a rental car kept beyond the agreement. "[T]here is no fiduciary or other special relationship required to prove embezzlement", and it is enough that the property was "delivered to him by another" — the statute being disjunctive (citing Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58, 64 (2006)). The question reduces to delivery plus fraudulent intent. Reporter cite 69 Va. App. 632.

George v. Commonwealth Rec. 080339 (Va. Oct. 31, 2008), Supreme Court of Virginia, 2008

binding

AFFIRMED. An employer who withheld taxes from employee wages and spent them on personal and business expenses embezzled funds belonging to the Commonwealth. The wages were received in trust by virtue of his position as employer; that he ran a single commingled account, whose balance at times fell below the withheld amount, was sufficient. A useful answer to "it was all one account". Reporter cite 276 Va. 767.

Note the practical order this suggests: delivery or receipt, then conversion, then intent. Proving a trust relationship is often unnecessary, and pleading one you cannot prove invites an argument you did not need to have.

4. Forgery and Uttering — § 18.2-172

"If any person forge any writing, other than such as is mentioned in §§ 18.2-168 and 18.2-170, to the prejudice of another's right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony."

Three distinct ways to violate it

FORGING the writing
UTTERING it — passing or offering it as genuine
ATTEMPTING to employ it as true All three carry the same Class 5 felony, and uttering requires knowledge that it is forged.

Forging a PUBLIC record is § 18.2-168, expressly excluded from this section. Do not charge § 18.2-172 for a public record.

5. Credit and Gift Cards

§ 18.2-192 — card or card number THEFT

Taking, obtaining or withholding a card or card number from another without the cardholder's consent
Or receiving it knowing it was so taken, with intent to use, sell or transfer it to anyone other than the issuer or cardholder

Graded as GRAND LARCENY and punishable as provided in § 18.2-95 — regardless of the card's value.

§ 18.2-195(A) — card fraud by the USER, all four subdivisions

USES, to obtain money, goods, services or anything else of value, a card or card number obtained or retained in violation of § 18.2-192, or one he KNOWS is EXPIRED OR REVOKED
OBTAINS value by representing (i) WITHOUT THE CARDHOLDER'S CONSENT that he is the holder of a specified card or number, or (ii) that he is the holder of a card or number that HAS NOT IN FACT BEEN ISSUED
OBTAINS CONTROL over a card or card number AS SECURITY FOR DEBT Easy to miss — taking a card as collateral is itself the offence, with no use of the card required.
OBTAINS MONEY from an issuer by an UNMANNED DEVICE, or through a person other than the issuer, KNOWING the advance will exceed his available credit and any available balances

All four require intent to defraud. The old note on this sheet said subsection A had five subdivisions; it has four.

§ 18.2-195(B) and (C) — the other two ways in

(B) The MERCHANT SIDE — a person authorised by the issuer to furnish value on presentation of a card commits card fraud by furnishing value on a card he knows is expired, revoked or unlawfully obtained; by FAILING to furnish value he represents he has furnished; or by remitting a record IN EXCESS of the amount the cardholder authorised Three subdivisions, all requiring intent to defraud the issuer or the cardholder.
(C) GIFT CARD FRAUD — devising a scheme, with intent to defraud, to obtain a gift card or gift card REDEMPTION INFORMATION from a holder, issuer or seller by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises Added by 2026, cc. 196 and 197. Note it reaches the REDEMPTION INFORMATION, not only the card — which is what card-draining schemes actually take.

§ 18.2-194 separately addresses unauthorized possession of two or more signed cards or card numbers, and § 18.2-186.3 covers identity theft — both listed here for routing only.

6. Defence Attacks & Responses

Defense attack	Prosecution response
The amount was under $1,000, so it's a misdemeanor.	True for the larceny-graded offences. But card FRAUD aggregates over any six-month period, card THEFT is grand larceny regardless of value, forgery is a Class 5 felony with no threshold, and the signature limb of § 18.2-178 is a Class 4 felony outright.
He had lawful possession — that isn't larceny.	Which is precisely why § 18.2-111 exists. Lawful receipt followed by fraudulent conversion is embezzlement, and proof of it sustains a larceny charge.
He never passed the document.	§ 18.2-172 reaches forging it, uttering it, AND attempting to employ it as true. Passing is not required.
He didn't know the card was revoked.	Knowledge is an element of that limb of § 18.2-195 — prove it, or proceed on the limb about a card obtained or retained in violation of § 18.2-192.
It's a public record, so § 18.2-172 doesn't apply.	Correct — that is § 18.2-168, which § 18.2-172 expressly excludes. Charge the right section.
The victim handed it over voluntarily.	That is the false-pretenses case, not a defence to it. Consent obtained by a false pretense with intent to defraud is what § 18.2-178 reaches.

7. Before You Charge

How the defendant came into possession — by deception, or lawfully then converted Deception → § 18.2-178. Lawful receipt then conversion → § 18.2-111.
Value established, where the offence is graded as larceny § 18.2-95: $1,000 not from the person; $5 from the person; any firearm.
For the signature limb of § 18.2-178: Class 4 felony, no threshold
For forgery: the writing is NOT a public record
Which forgery limb — forging, uttering, or attempting to employ
For card fraud: value aggregated across any six-month period
For card theft: charged as grand larceny under § 18.2-95
Entrustment relationship documented where embezzlement is charged
Overlap between § 18.2-178's signature limb and § 18.2-172 resolved

8. Annotated Authority

Annotated authority — research layer, not printed on the PDF

Wynne v. Commonwealth (en banc) 18 Va. App. 459, 459-60, 445 S.E.2d 160, 161, Va. Ct. App. (en banc), 1994

THE FOUR ELEMENTS: "(a) that the accused INTENDED TO DEFRAUD; (b) that a FRAUD ACTUALLY OCCURRED; (c) that the accused USED FALSE PRETENSES to perpetrate the fraud; and (d) that the false pretenses INDUCED THE OWNER TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY." ⚠️ AND THE CASE IS A REVERSAL: on rehearing en banc the conviction was REVERSED AND THE CASE DISMISSED, because "the alleged victim stated that the representations made WERE NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR in his decision to make a contribution to Wynne."

Practical value: The sheet cites Wynne for the elements, and it is the right citation — but the case is an INDUCEMENT FAILURE, which is the element prosecutors least often prove up. Ask the complaining witness the question directly: would you have parted with the money if you had known the truth? A victim who says the lie was not determinative ends the case. ⚠️ POSTURE: this is the EN BANC decision, which superseded the panel's affirmance at 17 Va. App. 277, 437 S.E.2d 195 (1993). Cite 18 Va. App. 459.

Wynne v. Commonwealth (panel, SUPERSEDED) 17 Va. App. 277, 437 S.E.2d 195, Va. Ct. App., 1993

⚠️ SUPERSEDED — recorded so it is not cited by mistake. The panel AFFIRMED Wynne's conviction on 9 November 1993; rehearing en banc was granted on 20 December 1993, "the mandate of the November 9, 1993 opinion was STAYED", and the en banc court reversed and dismissed.

Practical value: The panel citation is the one that appears to help the Commonwealth and does not. Cite 18 Va. App. 459.

Riegert v. Commonwealth 218 Va. 511, 518, 237 S.E.2d 803, 807, Va., 1977

The Supreme Court authority Wynne cites for the four elements of larceny by false pretenses.

Practical value: Cite Riegert with Wynne when the elements are in issue — it is the Supreme Court statement, and it does not carry Wynne's reversal on its face.

Bridgeman v. Commonwealth 3 Va. App. 523, 526-27, 351 S.E.2d 598, 600, Va. Ct. App., 1986

"Whether the Commonwealth relies upon either DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, it is required to establish the guilt of the accused TO THE EXCLUSION OF A REASONABLE DOUBT."

Practical value: Fraud cases are usually circumstantial on intent. Bridgeman is the reminder that the standard does not change with the species of proof.

Watson v. Commonwealth 4 Va. App. 450, 452, 358 S.E.2d 735, 736, Va. Ct. App., 1987

Conviction AFFIRMED. "The false pretense must be a false representation of an EXISTING FACT OR PAST EVENT" — not "promises or statements of intention relating to FUTURE EVENTS."

Practical value: The commonest defence in the section, and the answer is usually to find the existing fact hidden inside the promise: not "I will repay you" but "I have a job", "I own this car", "the cheque is good". Charge the representation about the present state of the world.

Cunningham v. Commonwealth 219 Va. 399, 402-03, 247 S.E.2d 683, 685, Va., 1978

AFFIRMED. "[B]oth TITLE TO AND POSSESSION of property must pass from the victim to the defendant (or his nominee)", and where "the victim RETAINS TITLE OR CONTROL over the property, the crime of obtaining IS NOT CONSUMMATED." On the facts the offence was complete when the defendant "obtained possession of the car BY CONCEALING THE FACT THAT SHE HAD STOPPED PAYMENT on the check."

Practical value: The title/possession line is what separates false pretenses from larceny by trick, and Cunningham shows how CONCEALMENT of an existing fact — the stop payment — supplies the false pretense without a spoken lie.

Parker v. Commonwealth 275 Va. 150, 154, 654 S.E.2d 580, 582, Va., 2008

Where several representations were made, "a conviction may be had if it is shown that ANY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO EXISTING FACTS INDUCED the complaining witness to part with his property." AFFIRMED.

Practical value: ⚠️ READ THE POSTURE AND THE CAPTION. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED the conviction; on rehearing en banc the court "VACATED THE PANEL'S MANDATE and affirmed the trial court's judgment FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE PANEL'S DISSENTING OPINION", and the Supreme Court affirmed. The panel majority is not law. ⚠️ And the facts are a DRUG TRANSACTION — an undercover detective arranging to buy 150 ecstasy pills — not a commercial fraud. Parker is on this sheet for the multiple-representations rule, which is general.

Reid v. Commonwealth Rec. No. 0511-15-1 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016) (published), Va. Ct. App., 2016

AFFIRMED. A LOAN PASSES TITLE — "title or ownership; these are not separate elements, only different terms" — so money obtained by a lie and never repaid is FALSE PRETENSES rather than larceny by trick, even though repayment was expected. Reid told drivers his car had been towed and asked them to lend him the recovery fee.

Practical value: The answer to "it was only a loan, so title never passed". It did. Charge false pretenses, and note that the expectation of repayment does not convert the taking into a civil debt.

Rooney v. Commonwealth 27 Va. App. 634, 644, 500 S.E.2d 830, Va. Ct. App., 1998

The rule the sheet cites is right: to prove embezzlement "the Commonwealth need not establish the existence of a FORMAL FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP", but must prove the defendant "WAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROPERTY of another". ⚠️ BUT THE CASE IS A REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL. A cemetery company failed to make the preneed trust deposits required by Code §§ 57-35.15 and 57-35.21, and the court held "ROONEY IS NOT PERSONALLY CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE CORPORATION'S FAILURE to make the mandatory trust deposits and that THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT to support the embezzlement conviction."

Practical value: ⚠️ THIS IS A LIMIT AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH BEING CITED AS A COMMONWEALTH CASE. The no-formal-fiduciary rule is real, but Rooney LOST on the entrustment limb: the money was entrusted to the CORPORATION, not to the officer. Before charging an officer or director personally, identify what was entrusted TO HIM. Pittman is the case that goes the other way.

Pittman v. Commonwealth Rec. No. 1572-17-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019) (published), Va. Ct. App., 2019

AFFIRMED on a RENTAL CAR kept beyond the agreement. "[T]here is NO FIDUCIARY OR OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED to prove embezzlement", and it is enough that the property was entrusted or delivered to the defendant.

Practical value: The everyday embezzlement fact pattern, and the useful counterweight to Rooney: a rental agreement entrusts the car TO THE RENTER PERSONALLY, so the entrustment limb is satisfied on the face of the contract.

George v. Commonwealth Rec. No. 080339 (Va. Oct. 31, 2008), Va., 2008

AFFIRMED. "[F]unds withheld by an employer from employees' wages for purposes of state income tax liability ARE NOT FUNDS BELONGING TO THE EMPLOYER. From the time such funds are withheld they are HELD IN TRUST FOR THE COMMONWEALTH pursuant to Code § 58.1-474. The wrongful and fraudulent use of such funds CAN BE THE BASIS OF AN EMBEZZLEMENT PROSECUTION." There was also NO FATAL VARIANCE between the indictments and the evidence, because § 58.1-474 made the ownership of the funds a question of law rather than one for the jury.

Practical value: The payroll-tax embezzlement case, and the ownership point is the whole charge: the money is the COMMONWEALTH'S from the moment it is withheld, so the employer cannot argue he was spending his own funds while short of cash. ⚠️ Note the variance holding — plead ownership in the Commonwealth, and rely on § 58.1-474 to keep ownership out of the jury's hands.

Lund v. Commonwealth 217 Va. 688, 232 S.E.2d 745, Va., 1977

Cited by Wynne among the authorities governing larceny by false pretenses.

Practical value: ⚠️ CROSS-SHEET: Lund is annotated in full on the THEFT and COMPUTER-CRIMES sheets, where its actual holding lives — "goods and chattels" in the larceny statute "cannot be interpreted to include COMPUTER TIME AND SERVICES". It appears here only because Wynne lists it, and this sheet does not rely on it.