Larceny Over $1,200 and Financial Crimes Defense in Massachusetts

Felony Larceny, Embezzlement, Identity Fraud, Credit Card Fraud, and the Professional License Consequences of Crimes of Dishonesty

Massachusetts financial crime charges occupy a category of their own. Licensing boards, FINRA, federal security clearance authorities, and employers pay close attention to felony larceny, embezzlement, identity fraud, credit card fraud, and insurance fraud because these offenses involve dishonesty or a breach of trust. A conviction or a CWOF on one of these charges carries professional consequences well beyond the criminal penalty, because the nature of the offense speaks directly to the trustworthiness that licensure requires. A board can forgive many things. Dishonesty is rarely one of them. That is why early, careful handling of the criminal case matters so much in this category, and why the most important decisions in a financial crime case are often made in the first two weeks.

A dismissal is often the goal in a case like this, and it is worth knowing who can order one. Our companion page explains how criminal cases get dismissed in Massachusetts.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a free consultation. Attorney Joseph Serpa brings thirty years of Massachusetts criminal defense to these cases. He represents defendants facing financial crime charges in District Courts, the Boston Municipal Court, and Massachusetts Superior Courts across Eastern and Central Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Financial and Theft Crime Spectrum

Felony Larceny Over $1,200 (M.G.L. c. 266, § 30)

Larceny of property with a fair market value exceeding $1,200 is a felony under M.G.L. c. 266, § 30. The charge carries up to five years in state prison or 2.5 years in a House of Correction, and a fine of up to $25,000. The felony threshold turns on the fair market value of the stolen property. It does not turn on the retail price, the replacement cost, or the owner’s sentimental valuation. Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction, and nothing more.

Under Commonwealth v. Kelly and related SJC decisions on larceny valuation, the prosecution bears the burden of proving fair market value beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel routinely attacks this element through independent appraisal, through comparable market analysis using secondary market platforms such as eBay, Craigslist, and Facebook Marketplace, and through cross-examination of the prosecution’s valuation witness on methodology and qualifications. The stakes of that fight are concrete. Reducing a $1,250 fair market value to $1,150 converts a five-year felony into a one-year misdemeanor, with profoundly different consequences for the CORI, for the licensing board exposure, and for the immigration analysis.

Larceny by False Pretenses (M.G.L. c. 266, § 30)

Larceny by false pretenses occurs when a defendant obtains property by intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, and the victim reasonably relies on that representation and is deceived into parting with the property. Simple larceny requires a taking without consent. False pretenses involves consent, but a consent induced by fraud. Under Commonwealth v. Redgate, the prosecution must prove a false representation of a present or past fact, the defendant’s knowledge that the representation was false, an intent to defraud, the victim’s reliance on the representation, and the victim’s parting with property as a result. Each element is a potential point of failure in the Commonwealth’s case, and a careful defense tests every one.

False pretenses charges arise in recurring patterns. Home improvement contractor fraud involves a contractor who accepts a deposit for work they do not intend to perform. Online sales fraud involves selling merchandise that does not exist or does not match the description. Landlord-tenant fraud involves misrepresenting the condition of a rental property. Employment fraud involves fabricating credentials or work history to obtain a position with salary payments.

Embezzlement (M.G.L. c. 266, §§ 50 to 57)

Embezzlement under M.G.L. c. 266, §§ 50 through 57 covers the wrongful conversion of property that was lawfully entrusted to the defendant by an employer, a principal, or a beneficiary. The critical distinction from larceny is that the defendant was authorized to possess the property in the first place. The crime lies in the wrongful diversion of that property for the defendant’s own benefit.

Massachusetts maintains separate embezzlement statutes for specific categories of defendant.

• M.G.L. c. 266, § 50 covers employees who embezzle from employers and is the most commonly charged embezzlement statute. Any employee who diverts employer funds to personal use, including cash register skimming, payroll fraud, expense reimbursement fraud, and inventory diversion, is charged under § 50
• M.G.L. c. 266, § 51 covers bank employees, insurance agents, and financial professionals who embezzle from clients or institutions
• M.G.L. c. 266, § 52 covers fiduciaries, meaning trustees, executors, administrators, conservators, and guardians who embezzle from the estates or persons they represent. Fiduciary embezzlement charges most commonly arise in estate administration and elder financial abuse cases
• M.G.L. c. 266, § 57 covers public employees who embezzle from government entities

Penalties for embezzlement track the larceny statute. Below $1,200 the offense is a misdemeanor. Above $1,200 it is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison. For cases involving large amounts or extended schemes, the prosecution typically charges multiple counts, because each transaction becomes a separate count and the total exposure multiplies. Superior Court prosecution through grand jury indictment is standard for embezzlement cases involving amounts over $25,000.

Identity Fraud (M.G.L. c. 266, § 37E)

Identity fraud under M.G.L. c. 266, § 37E is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison. The statute prohibits obtaining the personal identifying information of another person without consent, with the intent to commit any crime or to cause financial loss to the victim. “Personal identifying information” is defined broadly. It includes name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver’s license number, financial account numbers, biometric data, and digital credentials.

Identity fraud charges arise most frequently from credit card account takeover through phishing or data theft, tax fraud using stolen Social Security numbers, medical identity theft to obtain healthcare, and employment identity fraud using another person’s identity to pass a background check. The charge is frequently filed in combination with other fraud counts. A defendant charged with identity fraud under § 37E for using a stolen SSN, and with larceny by false pretenses under § 30 for fraudulently obtaining employment compensation, faces multiple felony counts across potentially many transactions.

Credit Card and ATM Fraud (M.G.L. c. 266, §§ 37B, 37C)

Credit card fraud under M.G.L. c. 266, § 37B covers the fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and electronic payment instruments. That includes using another person’s card without authorization, using a counterfeit card, and using a genuine card for a transaction the cardholder did not authorize. M.G.L. c. 266, § 37C covers ATM fraud and the unauthorized use of automated banking. Both are felonies carrying up to five years in state prison or 2.5 years in a House of Correction. The prosecution in these cases relies heavily on electronic records, meaning transaction logs, ATM camera footage, and IP address evidence. Defense counsel demands those records in full through discovery and subjects them to authentication and chain of custody challenge.

Insurance Fraud (M.G.L. c. 175, § 193W)

Insurance fraud under M.G.L. c. 175, § 193W carries up to five years in state prison and substantial civil penalties. The statute covers the submission of false or fraudulent claims to insurance companies, including staged automobile accidents, fraudulent property damage claims, false workers’ compensation claims, and healthcare billing fraud. Insurance fraud investigations in Massachusetts are conducted by the Insurance Fraud Bureau, known as the IFB, which works with the DA’s Office and employs its own investigators. IFB investigations are typically lengthy and complex. Subpoenas for medical records, employment records, repair shop records, and financial statements usually precede any charge, which means a target often has a meaningful window to retain counsel before the case reaches court.

Computer Fraud (M.G.L. c. 266, § 120F)

Unauthorized access to computer systems under M.G.L. c. 266, § 120F is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison. The statute covers accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network without authorization, or in excess of authorized access, with the intent to commit a crime. Computer fraud charges arise most commonly from unauthorized access to employer systems after termination, from accessing a former partner’s email or social media accounts, from hacking into financial accounts, and from corporate espionage through unauthorized data access. These cases frequently involve digital evidence obtained through search warrants for phones, computers, and cloud storage. Those warrants are subject to the specific constitutional requirements of Riley v. California (573 U.S. 373, 2014) and the SJC’s digital evidence jurisprudence. See Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts.

Common Defenses in Massachusetts Financial Crime Cases

Defense 1: Challenging the Valuation (Felony Threshold)

In every larceny-based financial crime where the $1,200 felony threshold applies, defense counsel challenges the prosecution’s valuation methodology from the first court date. The prosecution typically relies on the victim’s own estimate of loss, which may reflect retail price, replacement cost, or emotional valuation rather than fair market value. Independent appraisal, secondary market analysis, and expert testimony on the appropriate valuation standard are the tools of this challenge. In embezzlement cases, the prosecution’s accounting of the alleged theft amount receives the same scrutiny. Defense counsel examines the underlying financial records, identifies legitimate transactions that the prosecution has mischaracterized as theft, and where warranted retains expert accounting testimony.

Defense 2: Intent and Ownership

Every financial crime requires specific criminal intent, whether the intent to defraud, the intent to permanently deprive, or the intent to obtain something by deception. Defense counsel challenges whether the evidence establishes the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. In embezzlement cases, a defendant who took money from an employer account in the genuine belief they were entitled to it, whether as a bonus, as reimbursement for expenses, or as compensation for work performed, may lack the required fraudulent intent. In larceny by false pretenses cases, a defendant who made representations they believed to be true did not commit larceny even if the representations turned out to be false. Under Commonwealth v. Huot, a good faith belief in entitlement to the property is a complete defense to embezzlement. Financial disputes between employers and employees, between business partners, and between family members over shared accounts are civil matters far more often than they are crimes, and the defense frames them that way from the outset.

Defense 3: Digital Evidence Challenges

Financial crime prosecutions increasingly depend on digital evidence, including transaction records, IP logs, email and messaging data, and access records from cloud-based systems. Defense counsel examines whether the digital evidence was obtained through a constitutionally valid search warrant with the required particularity, whether the chain of custody from collection to production in court is intact, and whether the forensic methodology used to extract and analyze the evidence is reliable and reproducible. Attribution deserves equal attention. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, and not someone else, performed the specific digital actions charged. Shared accounts, shared devices, and unauthorized remote access can all explain the presence of incriminating digital activity without the defendant’s knowledge or participation. See Your Fifth Amendment Right to Refuse a Passcode in Massachusetts.

Defense 4: Civil Compromise and Restitution

Massachusetts law provides a mechanism for civil compromise in certain theft and fraud cases under M.G.L. c. 276, § 55. When the alleged victim is a private party rather than a government entity and the offense is a misdemeanor, the victim and defendant may enter into a civil compromise, typically involving a restitution payment, that can result in dismissal of the criminal charge upon the victim’s representation to the court that they have received satisfaction. Civil compromise is not available for all offenses and requires the court’s approval. It remains a viable pathway to resolution in appropriate first-time theft cases where the victim has been fully compensated and does not wish to proceed with criminal prosecution.

Defense 5: The Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

Many financial crime charges begin not with an arrest but with a summons for a clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A. First-offense fraud and embezzlement cases where police file a complaint application rather than making an arrest follow this path. The hearing is the single most valuable procedural opportunity in the case. A denied complaint means no CORI entry and no arraignment, which is the most protective outcome available in any financial crime case. For licensed professionals whose boards treat crimes of dishonesty with extraordinary severity, including the Board of Bar Overseers, BORIM, and FINRA, the clerk-magistrate denial is the only outcome that fully protects the professional license, because most reporting obligations attach at arraignment and a denial means arraignment never happens. Skipping that hearing gives the defense a motion to dismiss, though the dismissal is without prejudice under Cabrera v. Commonwealth (SJC 2025); see our page on how Massachusetts criminal cases get dismissed.

Preparation for these hearings is real advocacy, not a formality. Attorney Serpa treats a financial crime show cause hearing the way other lawyers treat a trial. Defense counsel presents the defendant’s professional credentials, the restitution paid, the absence of prior history, and a direct challenge to the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence on intent and valuation. Clerk-magistrates also have recognized discretion to decline a complaint even where probable cause technically exists, and a well-prepared presentation gives the magistrate a principled reason to exercise it. In appropriate cases counsel can propose holding the application open while restitution is completed, so the matter resolves without any complaint ever issuing. Thirty years of appearing before the clerk-magistrates of Greater Boston’s district courts informs how each of these hearings is prepared. See A Practitioner’s Guide to Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings and recent case results.

Collateral Consequences for Licensed Professionals and Financial Industry Employees

Theft charges carry a consequence unique to licensed professionals, because theft and dishonesty are the offense categories the licensing rules single out by name. For a Massachusetts lawyer, a shoplifting CWOF is a “serious crime” conviction under S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 12(3), because theft is an enumerated element. For a FINRA-registered professional, a misdemeanor charge involving the wrongful taking of property must be disclosed on the Form U4 regardless of how it resolves. For a bank employee, agreeing to a diversion program on a dishonesty offense can itself trigger the federal Section 19 employment bar. And a commercial driver who uses any vehicle in the commission of a felony faces a one-year CDL disqualification under M.G.L. c. 90F, § 9 on top of the criminal exposure. The complete rules are collected at Criminal Charges and Professional Licenses in Massachusetts.

Financial crime charges carry the most severe collateral consequences for licensed professionals of any charge category, because the character of the offense directly contradicts the trustworthiness that every professional license requires.

• Attorneys must report to the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) immediately upon arraignment for any crime involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. A CWOF or conviction on any financial crime charge is a disciplinary event that can result in suspension or disbarment
• Physicians must report any criminal charge to the Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM) within 30 days. A financial crime charge is a BORIM reportable event even when the conduct occurred entirely outside the practice of medicine, and it can result in license conditions or suspension
• FINRA-registered representatives must disclose all criminal charges on Form U4 within 30 days. Financial crime charges constitute statutory disqualification events under Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act, and a CWOF or conviction on a financial crime charge can result in a permanent bar from the securities industry
• Federal security clearance holders face heavy scrutiny, because theft, fraud, and embezzlement are among the most heavily weighted adverse factors in clearance adjudications under the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. A financial crime charge requires disclosure on SF-86 forms whether or not it results in a conviction, and it can result in clearance revocation
• Non-citizens face immigration exposure, because financial crimes that constitute crimes of moral turpitude, including larceny by false pretenses, fraud, and embezzlement, can render a non-citizen inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) or deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges

These timelines shape defense strategy from day one. Because the BBO obligation attaches at arraignment and the BORIM and FINRA clocks run from the charge itself, the defense goal in a professional’s case is to prevent the charge from ripening in the first place, whether through a clerk-magistrate denial, a pre-arraignment resolution, or an early dismissal supported by restitution. When a case cannot be stopped before arraignment, the resolution is negotiated with the reporting rules in view, because the difference between a dismissal and a CWOF that a board treats as a conviction is the difference between keeping and losing a career. Attorney Serpa coordinates with licensing counsel where a client retains one, and he structures the criminal defense so the client’s answers on future disclosure forms remain as clean as the facts allow.

Record protection continues after the case ends. A dismissed or nolle prossed financial crime charge can be sealed, and in narrower circumstances expunged, so that it stops appearing on standard employer CORI checks. The governing standards are explained at Massachusetts Sealing and Expungement Standards and Expunging or Sealing Your Criminal Record. For finance professionals the caveat matters. FINRA and federal clearance forms often reach conduct that CORI sealing hides from ordinary employers, so sealing is one layer of protection rather than the whole answer, and the best protection remains an outcome that never generates a record at all.

Courts Where Serpa Law Office Handles Financial Crime Cases

Misdemeanor financial crime cases are heard in Massachusetts District Courts and the Boston Municipal Court. Felony cases, including all cases where the prosecution elects Superior Court, proceed through grand jury indictment to the Superior Court. Serpa Law Office appears in financial crime proceedings in the following courts.

• BMC Central Division, hearing Financial District, Downtown Crossing, and Back Bay financial fraud cases, with a high concentration of technology sector and financial services employee embezzlement cases
• Cambridge District Court, hearing Kendall Square biotech and technology sector cases, along with startup and venture-backed company financial fraud
• Woburn District Court, hearing Burlington corporate park embezzlement and fraud cases and technology company employee cases
• Dedham District Court, hearing Wellesley, Needham, and Westwood financial professional cases and Route 1 contractor fraud cases
• Newton District Court, hearing Newton medical and financial professional cases
• Waltham District Court, hearing Route 128 biotech and technology sector financial fraud cases
• Framingham District Court, hearing MetroWest corporate professional cases and Route 9 and Turnpike corridor fraud cases
• Quincy District Court, hearing South Shore financial and medical professional cases and South Shore Plaza retail fraud cases

Superior Court prosecutions for financial crimes are filed in the Superior Court of the county where the alleged offense occurred. Suffolk Superior Court handles downtown Boston and BMC-origin cases. Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn handles Cambridge, Somerville, Waltham, and Woburn District Court-origin cases. Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham handles Quincy and Dedham District Court-origin cases.

See also Massachusetts Shoplifting and Larceny Defense, Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Grand Jury Indictments, Illegal Searches and Seizures in Massachusetts, Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges, and CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion FAQs.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a free consultation. Boston office at 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy office at 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. Available 24 hours a day.