A “card” includes an account number, not just plastic

Section 609.821 defines a financial transaction card as an instrument or device issued for the cardholder to obtain credit, money, goods, services, public-assistance benefits, or anything else of value. The list includes credit cards, debit cards, bank-services cards, check-guarantee cards, EBT cards, EBS cards, and assistance-transaction cards. It expressly includes “the account or identification number or symbol” of a card.

Online and mobile-wallet transactions

Because the number itself is included, the prosecution does not need to recover a physical card. A typed number, saved browser credential, photograph of a card, tokenized wallet account, or account symbol may satisfy the definition. That expands the evidence but also creates attribution problems: who entered the number, who controlled the account, who possessed the device, and who received the goods?

Cardholder and issuer are different

The “cardholder” is the person in whose name the card was issued. The “issuer” can be a person, firm, governmental agency, or authorized agent that issues it. Some statutory clauses require lack of cardholder consent. Others focus on what the issuer authorized, an intent to defraud the issuer or cardholder, or a false statement made to induce issuance.

Property is defined broadly

Property includes money, goods, services, public-assistance benefits, and anything else of value. A declined purchase may be an attempted use even though nothing was obtained. A hotel stay, ride, meal, cash advance, subscription, or digital product can qualify just as physical merchandise can.

Public-assistance cards and SNAP

The statute includes EBT and other assistance cards and separately defines trafficking of SNAP benefits. SNAP trafficking includes exchanging benefits for cash or ineligible consideration, exchanging benefits for firearms, ammunition, explosives, or controlled substances, specified container-deposit schemes, resale schemes, buying goods originally purchased with SNAP, and attempts or collusion to make prohibited exchanges.

The nine forms of financial transaction card fraud

Each clause has different elements. The State should identify the clause in the complaint and jury instructions rather than present “card fraud” as one undifferentiated offense.

1. Unauthorized use or attempted use

A person violates clause (1) by using or attempting to use a card without the cardholder’s consent, knowing consent was absent, to obtain another’s property or a public-assistance benefit issued for another. The State must prove both lack of consent and knowledge. A family member’s prior permission, shared household practice, business expense policy, emergency use, or mistaken belief may matter.

2. Forged, false, fictitious, or fraudulently obtained card

Clause (2) applies to using or attempting to use a card while knowing it is forged, false, fictitious, or obtained through the false-application conduct in clause (6). Merely possessing or presenting a card later rejected by an issuer does not necessarily prove the user knew its status.

3. Selling or transferring an unauthorized card

Clause (3) covers selling or transferring a card while knowing the cardholder and issuer have not authorized the recipient, or knowing the card is forged, false, fictitious, or fraudulently obtained. Digital transfer of an account number can qualify because the statutory definition includes the number or symbol.

4. Possessing two or more cards

Clause (4) is narrower than simple possession of one card. Without a legitimate business purpose and cardholder consent, it covers receiving or possessing two or more cards issued in another’s name with intent to use or unlawfully transfer them. It also covers two or more cards known to be forged, false, fictitious, or fraudulently obtained. The State must prove the count, lack of legitimate purpose or consent where required, and the relevant intent or knowledge.

5. Merchant or provider fraud

This clause addresses a person authorized by an issuer to furnish money, goods, services, or value. With knowledge and intent to defraud the issuer or cardholder, the person either furnishes value on a card known to be forged, expired, revoked, or presented without authority, or falsely represents in writing to the issuer that value was furnished when it was not. It is aimed at dishonest merchant-side participation, not an ordinary clerk who processes a transaction without knowledge.

6. False application

Clause (6) covers knowingly giving a false name or occupation on a card application; knowingly and substantially overvaluing assets or undervaluing debt to induce issuance; or knowingly making a false statement to induce issuance of a card used for public-assistance benefits. Materiality, purpose, authorship, and what the issuer received should be examined.

7. False theft, loss, disappearance, or nonreceipt report

With intent to defraud, falsely notifying an issuer or another person that a card was stolen, lost, missing, or never received violates clause (7). A mistaken memory, delayed discovery, household misunderstanding, mail-delivery problem, or corrected report is not automatically fraudulent. The State must prove falsity and intent.

8. False transaction document

Clause (8) covers falsely altering, making, or signing a written document relating to a card transaction, without cardholder consent and with knowledge consent was absent, to obtain or attempt to obtain property. Receipts, refund forms, signature slips, chargeback documents, and written confirmations may be implicated.

9. SNAP-benefit trafficking

The final clause incorporates the detailed SNAP-trafficking definition. These prosecutions may involve EBT terminal records, undercover transactions, store inventory, redemption ratios, video, informants, financial records, or an alleged pattern of cash exchanges. Lawful benefit use, household authorization, eligible food purchases, and retailer practices should be separated from prohibited exchange.

Consent, knowledge, and intent are not interchangeable

Many card cases begin with proof that the account holder disputed a charge. A dispute may establish that the holder now denies authorization, but it does not automatically prove what permission existed when the transaction occurred or what the accused knew.

Express consent

Consent can be given directly: “Use my card to buy groceries,” “pay this bill,” or “make this business purchase.” The scope matters. Permission for $100 does not necessarily authorize $1,000, and permission for one transaction may not authorize later transactions. Text messages, emails, household practices, expense policies, and witness testimony can define the scope.

Apparent or continuing permission

Couples, relatives, caregivers, employees, and business partners sometimes share cards or account numbers informally. A breakup, termination, revoked authority, or later dispute may change consent. The State must prove the charged use occurred without consent and, under clause (1), that the accused knew it. Timing and notice are often central.

Cardholder consent does not answer every clause

Some clauses also concern issuer authorization, forged or fictitious status, or false application information. A person cannot necessarily rely on another individual’s permission to use a card the issuer never authorized or that was created through fraud. The defense must match the consent evidence to the actual statutory theory.

Knowledge may be circumstantial

The State may rely on concealment, repeated declines, mismatched names, unusual purchasing, false explanations, rapid transactions, account changes, or possession of multiple cards. Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence, but the inferences must be reasonable. In State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329–30 (Minn. 2010), the Supreme Court explained that reviewing circumstantial proof requires considering whether there are reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt. In a card case, shared access, mistaken identity, compromised credentials, or prior permission may supply such an inference depending on the facts.

Digital evidence can identify a user—or point to someone else

Issuer and merchant records

Useful records include authorization requests, approvals and declines, merchant identifiers, device or token information, address verification, CVV results, timestamps, refund records, chargebacks, and customer-service calls. A spreadsheet prepared for police should be traced to the underlying business records and explained by a qualified witness.

IP address and account login

An IP address identifies a connection, not necessarily a person. Home networks, workplaces, public Wi-Fi, VPNs, carrier-grade address sharing, remote access, and multiple household devices complicate attribution. Account logs may show login time, device, session, location estimate, password reset, or multifactor authentication, but investigators should connect those facts to an actual user.

Mobile-wallet and token evidence

Apple Pay, Google Wallet, and similar systems may use tokenized numbers different from the printed card number. Provisioning can require device credentials or issuer verification. Device model, wallet enrollment, token requestor, biometric settings, and possession at the transaction time may be more probative than the visible account number.

Delivery and pickup evidence

An address associated with an order does not prove who ordered or received it. Apartment common areas, package lockers, reshipping, curbside pickup, stolen accounts, and changed delivery instructions can intervene. Video, vehicle records, signatures, pickup identification, messages, and package tracking should be compared.

Authentication

Minnesota Rule of Evidence 901 requires sufficient evidence to support a finding that an offered item is what its proponent claims. A screenshot with a name at the top may not establish authorship by itself. The complete extraction, metadata, subscriber records, distinctive content, reply patterns, device ownership, and corroborating conduct can support or undermine authentication.

Phone searches ordinarily require a warrant

In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 401 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that police generally may not search digital information on a seized phone merely as an arrest search. Its practical instruction was: “get a warrant.” Consent, exigency, scope, particularity, and the relationship between alleged fraud and categories searched remain litigable.

Value, attempts, aggregation, and venue

Attempted value counts

For clauses (1), (2), (5), (8), and (9), the penalty tiers use the value obtained or attempted. A declined $4,000 purchase may therefore place the allegation in a higher tier even though the merchant lost nothing. The State must prove the intended property and value, not merely a card’s credit limit.

Six-month aggregation

The State may combine transactions made or attempted within any six-month period for the principal value-tier provisions. The charging total should be audited line by line. Duplicated authorizations, reversals, voids, refunded purchases, test charges, attempted and completed entries for the same order, and transactions outside the period can inflate an aggregate.

Completed value versus restitution loss

Offense value, actual economic loss, and restitution are related but not always identical. A merchant may reverse a charge, recover goods, receive insurance or issuer reimbursement, or incur fees. The criminal tier can include attempted value, while restitution generally focuses on compensable loss caused by the offense. Those calculations should not be collapsed into one number.

Multi-county venue

When the same person commits two or more card offenses in two or more counties, aggregated transactions may be prosecuted in any county where one occurred. Digital orders can involve a user, cardholder, merchant, issuer, processor, and delivery address in different places. Venue should be checked against the statute and charged aggregate.

Card transfer and possession use a different penalty

Clauses (3) and (4) do not use the transaction-value ladder. Selling or transferring a card, or possessing two or more qualifying cards with the required intent or knowledge, carries up to three years and a $5,000 fine. Actual purchases are not required for the possession clause.

Defense issues in a Minnesota card-fraud case

The cardholder consented—or the accused reasonably believed so

Consent evidence can defeat lack of consent, knowledge, or both. Preserve texts, emails, shared-account history, expense approvals, household purchases, repayment discussions, and earlier authorized transactions. The strongest evidence often predates the dispute and has not been selected for litigation.

The State identified the account, not the user

An account under one name, an order sent to an address, or a device found in a home may narrow the field without proving who acted. Shared phones, saved passwords, family accounts, compromised credentials, guests, employees, remote access, and identity theft should be investigated. Device forensics should be examined for user profiles, unlock events, browser artifacts, app activity, and timestamps.

Knowledge or intent is missing

A person may receive a card from someone who appears authorized, process a merchant transaction without knowing the card is revoked, relay information without intent to defraud, or make an inaccurate loss report honestly. Each clause has its own mental-state language. The jury should not be told that an unauthorized result automatically proves knowledge at the outset.

The State overstates value

Defense counsel should reconcile issuer, merchant, and police totals. A pending authorization may never become a purchase. A void and its replacement may be counted twice. A return or recovered item may affect loss even if not offense value. An attempted transaction needs proof of the item and amount sought. Dropping below $35,000, $2,500, or $250 changes statutory exposure.

Aggregation is defective

Transactions outside the selected six-month period, acts by another person, or conduct charged under a clause not subject to the same value ladder should not be swept into one total without legal support. The State also must prove the same person committed the aggregated acts.

The search or digital seizure was unlawful

Challenges may involve a traffic stop, home warrant, phone warrant, account-record order, consent search, or seizure of devices. Counsel should test probable cause, nexus, particularity, date limits, account identifiers, search categories, execution, minimization, and whether investigators exceeded the warrant. A warrant for card fraud should not automatically authorize an unlimited search of every file and account.

The merchant or issuer records are incomplete or unauthenticated

A custodian may need to explain how records were made and maintained. Screenshots, exported spreadsheets, fraud scores, and investigator-created summaries should be traced to source data. Missing time zones, unexplained codes, hearsay within records, and unsupported assumptions can affect admissibility or weight.

The false-application statement was not made to induce issuance

Clause (6) requires more than any inaccuracy. The State must prove the specified knowing falsehood and, for asset or debt statements, the purpose of inducing issuance. A typo, outdated employment entry, disputed valuation, third-party application, or correction may undermine the theory.

The conduct was not SNAP trafficking

SNAP investigations can misread household shopping, reimbursement, shared meal preparation, return-deposit conduct, or retailer inventory. The prosecution must prove a transaction within the detailed statutory definition, including the required intent and prohibited consideration. Complete terminal, inventory, surveillance, and financial records matter.

Statements were obtained unlawfully or are unreliable

Custodial interrogation generally requires Miranda warnings, and every statement must be voluntary. Fatigue, language barriers, threats, promises, confusion over transaction records, or pressure to explain months of charges immediately can produce inaccurate admissions. Recordings should be compared with police summaries.

Financial transaction card fraud penalties

Clauses (1), (2), (5), (8), and (9)

• More than $35,000: up to 20 years and a $100,000 fine.
• More than $2,500 through $35,000: up to ten years and a $20,000 fine.
• More than $250 through $2,500: up to five years and a $10,000 fine.
• $250 or less with a qualifying prior within five years: up to five years and a $10,000 fine.
• $250 or less without that enhancement: up to 364 days and a $3,000 fine.

The qualifying-prior provision lists specified robbery, carjacking, theft, receiving-stolen-property, burglary, forgery, and card-fraud offenses and requires the prior sentence or stayed disposition described in the statute. The record, date, identity, foreign-statute conformity, and sentence should be verified.

Clauses (3) and (4)

Unauthorized transfer or sale of a card and possession of two or more qualifying cards carry up to three years and a $5,000 fine. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines offense-severity table ranks these clauses at severity level 1.

Clauses (6) and (7)

For a false application or false theft/loss/nonreceipt report, the maximum is 364 days and $3,000 if no property other than the card was obtained. If other property was obtained, the value ladder applies.

Sentencing Guidelines levels

The current Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines offense-severity table ranks financial-transaction-card fraud over $35,000 at severity level 5, value-tier fraud over $2,500 at level 3, value-tier fraud of $2,500 or less at level 2, and clauses (3) and (4) at level 1. Criminal-history score then determines the presumptive grid cell. Statutory maximums still cap the sentence.

Restitution

Restitution may be sought under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (2026) for losses directly caused by the offense. Issuers, merchants, cardholders, and benefit programs can have overlapping claims, so the court should avoid double recovery. Charge reversals, recovered goods, insurer or issuer payments, fees, and proof of causation should be examined. A restitution challenge has procedural deadlines.

The prosecutor’s offense-value spreadsheet is not automatically a restitution affidavit. A victim claiming restitution should document the amount, itemize the loss, and account for reimbursement or recovery. The defense should distinguish a bank’s temporary account credit, a merchant’s chargeback, the cardholder’s out-of-pocket loss, and investigative or replacement costs. Some losses may be real but attributable to conduct outside the conviction offense; others may have been fully reimbursed. The sentencing record should make clear who receives what and why.

Collateral consequences and expungement

A fraud conviction can affect employment in finance, retail, health care, government, and fiduciary positions; professional licenses; immigration; housing; and later sentencing. Minn. Stat. § 609A.02 (2026) includes financial transaction card fraud among offenses that may be eligible for statutory expungement, but eligibility and the court’s decision depend on the disposition, time, record, and governing criteria. Expungement does not erase every federal or private record.

What happens after a card-fraud charge?

1. First appearance: The court addresses release, bail, and conditions, which may restrict financial accounts, contact, travel, or internet use.
2. Discovery: The State provides reports, account records, video, statements, device extractions, warrants, transaction summaries, and cardholder evidence.
3. Forensic accounting: The defense builds a transaction ledger and reconciles amounts, dates, reversals, refunds, users, merchants, and alleged losses.
4. Digital investigation: Counsel examines authentication, devices, IP data, logins, wallet tokens, delivery records, and competing users.
5. Motions: Hearings may address searches, warrants, statements, account records, identification, authentication, value, aggregation, or probable cause.
6. Negotiation: Discussions can address the clause, value tier, dismissed counts, restitution, sentence, departures, and collateral consequences.
7. Trial: The State must prove the charged conduct, knowledge or intent, lack of consent where required, identity, value, and venue beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. Sentencing: The court resolves the Guidelines cell, restitution, departures, custody credit, fines, and probation conditions.

Frequently asked questions about Minnesota card fraud