Factors such as the amount of money stolen, state or federal charges, the victims involved, and criminal history will play a role in what particular penalties you may face if convicted of fraud.
Prison – Incarceration can range from case to case, but individuals convicted of fraud crimes are often sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment, sometimes as much as 20 or more years.
While there are many different types of offenses that can be considered fraud, they all involve deception or misrepresentation in order to benefit financially at another’s expense. These crimes can range in complexity from simple scams to complex schemes – and they can carry life-altering penalties for those who stand accused.
There are a number of fraud statutes in Minnesota that outline several fraud categories.
The value of the transaction will be the main determining factor when a judge decides what kind of sentence to hand down. The penalties can include jail time, probation, fines, restitution or the forfeiture of your property.
Being accused of fraud can have a serious impact on the rest of your life. That is why you need to have a powerful defense attorney by your side from the very beginning until the very end. Having a competent defense can assist you in receiving a much better outcome in your case.
Puffery is defined as “publicity or acclaim that is full of undue or exaggerated praise.”.
The original 11-part fraud test first coined by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun has since been whittled down to a modern day 5-part test. The elements, however, remain the same. For a plaintiff to prevail there must have been a: 1 false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact; 2 knowledge by the person making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion; 3 an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act; 4 the claimant must have been induced to act or justified in acting in reliance on the representation; and 5 the claimant must suffer damage caused by the misrepresentation.
false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact; knowledge by the person making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion; an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act;
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun has since been whittled down to a modern day 5-part test. The elements, however, remain the same.
An important distinction when examining a potential claim for fraud is that a fraud claim cannot be based upon a misrepresentation tied to a future event. The statement also has to be specific enough to include a representation of fact. Such examples of language that courts have determined to be too vague to substantiate a fraud claim are “I’ll look into it” when an employer was responding to a request for severance payment or a salesman states a product has “years of trouble-free performance.”
Most notably, in the instance of pharmaceutical salesman due to public policy considerations. In sum, it is most likely that statements of opinion are considered puffery and are not viable fraud claims.