Larceny by False Pretenses Defense Attorney Massachusetts

Charged with larceny by false pretenses in Massachusetts? Felony exposure over $1,200, plus restitution. Free 24/7 consultation with defense counsel.

Calm seas after the storm of a criminal charge.

Defense Based on Understanding & Compassion

We have a comprehensive approach to legal defense that addresses both the immediate legal needs and the broader context surrounding a case. We understand that innocent people get accused. We also understand that sometimes there are factors that the police and prosecutors don't pay attention to that may explain what happened, and why. Our team draws on experience with trauma, addiction, and mental health to uncover critical factors that often underlie financial crimes. This enables us to humanize clients, mount the strongest possible defense, and help clients make lasting and positive changes in their lives.

Over 30 Years Defending Larceny by False Pretenses Charges in Massachusetts Courts

Larceny by false pretenses charges in Massachusetts arise when someone is alleged to have obtained property by intentional misrepresentation. Penalties range from misdemeanor exposure to up to 10 years in state prison depending on the value, the alleged victim, and the type of transaction. We defend individuals charged with false pretenses offenses in Essex County and throughout Eastern Massachusetts.

Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation available 24/7.

Understanding Your Situation

Larceny by false pretenses cases often emerge from contract disputes, business deals gone bad, or transactions later disputed by the other party, and they can blur the line between civil disagreement and criminal charge. We have defended people facing larceny by false pretenses charges for over 30 years in Massachusetts courts.

Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.

Understanding Larceny by False Pretenses Charges in Massachusetts

If you are looking at charging documents involving larceny by false pretenses, the first thing to understand is that this is one of three theories of larceny under Massachusetts law, alongside larceny by stealing and larceny by embezzlement. The theory the Commonwealth chooses determines what they have to prove. False pretenses cases turn on a specific allegation: that the defendant told a deliberate lie to obtain property, the alleged victim believed it, relied on it, and gave up property because of it.

Massachusetts recognizes five distinct false pretenses statutes under c. 266: larceny by false pretenses (§ 30), elder larceny by false pretenses (§ 30(5)), obtaining signature by false pretenses (§ 31), false pretenses relating to contracts, banking, or credit (§ 33), and inducement to part with property (§ 34). Each shares the same four core elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant made a knowingly false statement of an existing fact, that the defendant acted with intent to defraud, that the alleged victim relied on the false statement, and that the alleged victim transferred property as a result. Each element is heavily contested in most cases. False statements about the future, expressions of opinion, and ordinary salesmanship are not crimes. The major Massachusetts false pretenses statutes are set out below.

Larceny by False Pretenses

Larceny by false pretenses is one of the three theories of larceny captured in M.G.L. c. 266, § 30. The same value thresholds and penalty structures that apply to general larceny apply here. Property over $1,200 is a felony with up to 5 years in state prison, or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000. Property of $1,200 or less is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $1,500. Larceny of a firearm by any theory, including false pretenses, is a felony regardless of value.

The four elements (false statement of existing fact, intent to defraud, reliance, and transfer of property) are the central battleground. Massachusetts courts have long held that a false promise about future conduct is not a false pretense. The statement must concern an existing or past fact, not a prediction or representation about what will happen. Honest puffery, sales optimism, and statements of opinion all fall outside the statute. The line between civil contract dispute and criminal false pretenses is often the central defense question.

Elder Larceny by False Pretenses

M.G.L. c. 266, § 30(5) imposes enhanced penalties when the alleged victim is 60 or older or has a disability and the value exceeds $250: up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in the house of correction, with a fine of up to $50,000. Property of $250 or less in elder cases carries up to 2.5 years in the house of correction and a fine of up to $1,000. The false pretenses theory often appears in elder cases involving home repair scams, investment fraud targeting retirees, and similar fact patterns.

Many of these cases involve disputes between family members, romantic partners, or trusted advisors of older relatives. The line between authorized assistance with finances and unauthorized misrepresentation can be unclear. We cover the elder larceny pattern in detail on a separate page.

Obtaining Signature by False Pretenses

Obtaining a signature by false pretenses under M.G.L. c. 266, § 31 is a separate offense that overlaps with both forgery and larceny by false pretenses. The Commonwealth must prove four elements: that the defendant obtained the signature of another person on a written instrument, that the false making of the instrument would be a forgery, that the signature was obtained by false pretense, and that the defendant acted with intent to defraud.

The penalty mirrors the larceny by false pretenses penalty under § 30: up to 5 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000 for property over $1,200, or up to 1 year for $1,200 or less. The statute is most often charged where the defendant tricked the alleged victim into signing a contract, deed, check, or other written instrument, often in cases involving real estate, loans, or estate planning. Like other false pretenses charges, the case turns on whether the misrepresentation was about an existing fact rather than about future conduct or opinion.

False Pretenses Relating to Contracts, Banking, or Credit

M.G.L. c. 266, § 33 addresses false pretenses used to obtain the making, acceptance, or endorsement of a bill of exchange or promissory note, the signing of a written contract, or the discount of a draft, with intent to defraud. This statute reaches financial transactions where the defendant's alleged misrepresentation induced the alleged victim to enter into a financial obligation: a loan, an endorsement, a guarantee, or a similar instrument.

The statute is most commonly charged in business and lending contexts: false statements made to obtain a line of credit, false collateral representations to secure a loan, or false statements made to induce the discount of commercial paper. The penalty mirrors the larceny statute. As with other false pretenses charges, the line between aggressive negotiating, normal salesmanship, and criminal misrepresentation is often where the case is fought. Where the alleged victim was a sophisticated commercial party with the means to verify representations, the reliance element can be particularly difficult for the Commonwealth to establish.

Inducement to Part with Property by False Pretense

M.G.L. c. 266, § 34 is a related but distinct statute covering anyone who, by false pretense, induces another to part with property of any kind, with intent to defraud. The scope is broader than § 30 in some respects, reaching property arrangements that may not qualify as larceny in the traditional sense, including some forms of consensual transfer obtained through deception. Conviction carries up to 5 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

In practice, § 34 is often charged in the alternative with § 30 when prosecutors are uncertain which theory the evidence supports. Many cases that are charged under both end up resolving as straight larceny cases, with the § 34 count dismissed at sentencing. The "intent to defraud" element here, as in every false pretenses statute, requires a specific dishonest purpose at the time of the misrepresentation.

Statutory Exemption Under Section 35

M.G.L. c. 266, § 35 contains an important exemption that many people are surprised to learn about. Sections 30, 31, and 34 do not apply to a purchase of property by means of a false pretense relative to the purchaser's means, occupation, or financial standing, unless the false pretense is in writing and signed by the purchaser. In other words, oral misrepresentations about the buyer's ability to pay, financial situation, or income are not criminal under these statutes.

This exemption matters in everyday transactions. A person who walks into a store, claims to be employed when they are not, and buys merchandise on credit has not committed larceny by false pretenses unless the misrepresentation about employment was in a signed writing. The exemption reflects a legislative judgment that ordinary commercial puffery about ability to pay should not be criminalized. It often defeats charges that prosecutors initially file. Where charges are based primarily on a defendant's spoken representations about their financial circumstances, this exemption can resolve the case entirely.

Potential Consequences Under Massachusetts Law

We know you are already worried about what could happen, particularly if the alleged loss is large or if the case has been the subject of a lengthy investigation by the alleged victim, the police, or a state agency. The exact consequences depend entirely on which statute is charged, the value involved, and the alleged victim's status.

Most larceny by false pretenses cases involving property over $1,200 are felonies carrying up to 5 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000. Cases involving alleged victims aged 60 or older or persons with disabilities, with values over $250, carry up to 10 years in state prison and a fine of up to $50,000. Smaller cases (property of $1,200 or less; elder cases under $250) are misdemeanors. Restitution is essentially always ordered upon conviction for the full amount of the alleged loss.

Beyond direct sentencing, false pretenses convictions are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude and as crimes of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, meaning they remain admissible to impeach credibility for at least 10 years. Professional licenses in finance, real estate, healthcare, education, and any role requiring trust are at serious risk. Federal employment, security clearances, and bonded positions become difficult or impossible. Non-citizens face deportation consequences for false pretenses convictions, particularly where the alleged loss exceeds $10,000, which makes the offense an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. Civil follow-on litigation is common, and many alleged victims pursue civil recovery in addition to or instead of criminal restitution.

A charge is not a conviction. False pretenses cases turn on contested questions of intent, materiality of the alleged misrepresentation, reliance, and the distinction between civil dispute and criminal conduct. Each element has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof is often built from documents, witness testimony, and contested credibility judgments that can be challenged.

Possible Defenses Under Massachusetts Law

Right now this may feel hopeless, especially if the alleged victim has already pointed to documents that look damning out of context. There are real defenses available across the entire false pretenses category, and the Commonwealth's burden on intent and reliance is high. Possible defenses include:

Statement was about future conduct. False pretenses requires a statement about an existing or past fact. False promises about the future, predictions, expressions of opinion, and forward-looking representations are not crimes. The line between past fact and future conduct is often the central defense question.

Statement was opinion or puffery. Honest sales optimism, statements of opinion, and ordinary commercial puffery are not false pretenses. "This is a great investment" is opinion; "this property has 100 acres" is fact. Massachusetts courts have repeatedly distinguished between the two.

Statutory exemption under § 35. Where the alleged false pretense concerns the purchaser's means, occupation, or financial standing, the case is barred unless the misrepresentation was in a signed writing. Many oral representations about ability to pay, employment, or income fall within this exemption.

No reliance. The alleged victim must have actually relied on the false statement. Where the victim conducted independent investigation, where the misrepresentation was not material to the decision, or where the victim had reason to know the truth, the reliance element fails.

Lack of intent to defraud. Every false pretenses statute requires specific intent to defraud at the time the statement was made. Honest mistake, good faith belief in the truth of statements, evolving understanding of facts, and innocent error all defeat this element.

Civil dispute, not crime. Many cases reflect contractual disputes, business deals gone bad, or family financial disagreements. The line between civil dispute and criminal false pretenses turns on intent, and these cases often belong in civil court rather than criminal court.

Disputed valuation. Where the alleged loss is at or near a felony threshold ($1,200 generally, $250 in elder cases), or near the $10,000 aggravated-felony immigration threshold, contesting valuation can dramatically change the case.

Constitutional violations. Searches, statements, and document seizures during false pretenses investigations must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Successful suppression motions often dismantle prosecutions.

Charge reduction strategies. Many false pretenses cases can be reduced from felony to misdemeanor, from one larceny theory to another, or from criminal to civil resolution depending on what the evidence supports.

Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.

If You've Just Been Charged with Larceny by False Pretenses

If you have just been arrested, served with a summons, contacted by an investigator, or threatened with charges by an alleged victim, take a breath. Here is what you need to do right now.

Don't talk to investigators from any agency, the alleged victim, or the alleged victim's attorney without a lawyer present, even if you are told this is just an opportunity to clear things up
Don't sign anything presented by the alleged victim, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment can sometimes be the right strategy, but it must be timed and structured carefully so it does not become evidence of fraudulent intent
Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including business partners, family members, or anyone else who might later be interviewed
Don't destroy or alter records related to the alleged transaction. Spoliation of evidence creates additional charges and converts a defensible case into an obstruction case
Preserve all relevant records including emails, text messages, contracts, financial records, marketing materials, and any documents that might show the actual content and context of the disputed statements
Write down everything you remember about the relevant transactions, conversations, and what was actually said about the disputed facts
Don't post anything about your case, the alleged victim, the investigation, or the disputed transaction on social media
Contact an experienced Massachusetts false pretenses defense attorney as soon as possible

Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation 24/7.

Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.

“I would absolutely recommend Ernie to anyone.”

He was more than just my lawyer. He was my guardian angel during a very scary and desperate time in my life. He walked with me every step of the way and looked out for my best interest at every twist and turn. He stayed available seven days a week and within moments of my reaching out to him. I will be indebted to him forever. I knew I was in safe hands even though my matter kept me in constant fear. He gave me the courage to keep pushing forward and spent countless hours cheerleading me through an unspeakable experience.

Diane

"Attorney Stone was excellent."

He was extremely knowledgeable and knew his way around the Diversion Program and the Court. He gave us all the information and potential results upfront. He explained the entire process to us from start to finish and he mapped out a plan of action that resulted in a favorable outcome for my child. I would recommend Attorney Stone 100 percent. Thanks to him my child has no criminal record.

Lisa

"I knew Ernie was the real deal."

I knew the moment I spoke to Ernie on the phone he was the real deal. He made us feel at ease during a very stressful time and fought for us. We won our case because of his perseverance and professionalism. He’s just a really good person who’s in your corner fighting for you. Thanks Ernie you’re the best!!!!

Cheryl

"I can't say enough about Ernie and his team. "

They helped our family navigate a very delicate and complicated legal situation. We couldn't be more pleased with the outcome. And Ernie's down-to-earth demeanor helped us feel like we were being listened to and never being talked down to. I would highly recommend Ernie, as I am certain he would do his absolute best to achieve a best-case-scenario outcome for every single one of his clients.

R. H.

"Much love and appreciation to this group"

I would recommend them to anyone. From the first call I knew this was the right choice. Ernie kept my best interests in mind when representing me with results better than expected! I can’t thank them enough. Special shout-out to Joanne who is truly the nicest person. Their whole vibe was homely like family. Much love and appreciation to this group... even the 4 legged nugget running around their office.

A. R.

"I was in good hands..."

Before working with Ernie I was very unaware of how my future would be and felt alone in my case; that all changed once I had Ernie Stone as my lawyer. Very professional, very reassuring, very caring and helpful with any questions you may have. I can definitely say that there was always a smile on their faces and made me feel welcomed and well taken care of. I had no doubt in mind that I was in good hands and that I was going to be alright.

R. J.

What to Expect When You Call

We know this call is hard to make. You may feel embarrassed, worried about your reputation, or unsure of what to say. That is okay. You do not need to have the right words.

We will listen to your story and answer your questions
We will explain the specific false pretenses charge and what the Commonwealth must prove
We will discuss possible defense strategies and resolution options for your specific situation
We will explain how an investigation might be addressed before formal charges issue
We will explain the line between civil dispute and criminal false pretenses, and where your case falls
We will explain our approach and how we can help you through this
Everything you tell us is confidential
There is no obligation to hire us

You do not need to have the answers. Just call, and we will take it from there. Phones answered 24/7 by a real person. Free, confidential consultation.

We'll Get You Through the Storm

Larceny by false pretenses charges demand experienced legal representation. We can help you through this storm.

Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.

Over 30 years of Massachusetts criminal defense experience. Serving Essex County and Eastern Massachusetts including Beverly, Salem, Lynn, Peabody, Gloucester, Newburyport, Lawrence, and Haverhill.