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 crimes — felony larceny, embezzlement, identity fraud, credit card fraud, and insurance fraud — are treated with particular severity by licensing boards, FINRA, federal security clearance authorities, and employers because they involve dishonesty, breach of trust, or both. A conviction or CWOF on any of these charges can end a career in law, medicine, finance, or technology more effectively than many violent offenses because the specific character of the crime directly contradicts the trustworthiness that professional licensing requires.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a free consultation. Attorney Joseph Serpa — Georgetown Law, thirty years of Massachusetts criminal defense — 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, carrying 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 is determined by the fair market value of the stolen property — not the retail price, not the replacement cost, not the owner’s sentimental valuation. Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction.

Under Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald and related SJC decisions on larceny valuation, the prosecution bears the burden of proving fair market value beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel routinely challenges this element through independent appraisal, comparable market analysis using secondary market platforms (eBay, Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace), and cross-examination of the prosecution’s valuation witness on their methodology and qualifications. Reducing a $1,250 fair market value to $1,150 through effective valuation defense converts a five-year felony to a one-year misdemeanor — with profoundly different consequences for the CORI, the licensing board exposure, and 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 on which the victim reasonably relies and by which the victim is deceived into parting with the property. Unlike simple larceny — which requires a taking without consent — larceny by false pretenses involves the victim’s consent, but a consent induced by fraud. Under Commonwealth v. Redgate, the prosecution must prove: (1) a false representation of a present or past fact; (2) that the defendant knew the representation was false; (3) that the representation was made with intent to defraud; (4) that the victim relied on the representation; and (5) that the victim parted with property as a result.

False pretenses cases arise most frequently in: home improvement contractor fraud — a contractor who accepts a deposit for work they do not intend to perform; online sales fraud — selling merchandise that does not exist or does not match the description; landlord-tenant fraud — misrepresenting the condition of a rental property; and employment fraud — fabricating credentials or work history to obtain a position with salary payments.

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

Embezzlement under M.G.L. c. 266, §§ 50–57 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 has separate embezzlement statutes for specific categories of defendant:

• M.G.L. c. 266, § 50: employees who embezzle from employers — 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: bank employees, insurance agents, and financial professionals who embezzle from clients or institutions
• M.G.L. c. 266, § 52: fiduciaries — 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: public employees who embezzle from government entities

Penalties for embezzlement track the larceny statute — below $1,200 is a misdemeanor; above $1,200 is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison. For embezzlement cases involving large amounts or extended schemes, the prosecution typically charges multiple counts — each transaction becomes a separate count — multiplying the total exposure. 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 their consent, with the intent to commit any crime or to cause financial loss to the victim. “Personal identifying information” is defined broadly to include 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 in: 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 (§ 37E) for using a stolen SSN and larceny by false pretenses (§ 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 — including 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 credit card fraud cases relies heavily on electronic records — transaction logs, ATM camera footage, and IP address evidence — which defense counsel demands in full through discovery and subjects 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 — 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 (IFB), which works with the DA’s Office and has its own investigators. IFB investigations are typically lengthy and complex, involving subpoenas for medical records, employment records, repair shop records, and financial statements before charges are filed.

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 in: unauthorized access to employer systems after termination; accessing a former partner’s email or social media accounts; hacking into financial accounts; and corporate espionage through unauthorized data access. Computer fraud cases frequently involve digital evidence obtained through search warrants for phones, computers, and cloud storage — warrants that 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 all larceny-based financial crimes 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 is similarly challenged — through examination of the underlying financial records, identification of legitimate transactions that the prosecution has mischaracterized as theft, and expert accounting testimony.

Defense 2: Intent and Ownership

Every financial crime requires specific criminal intent — the intent to defraud, to permanently deprive, or 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 — as a bonus, a reimbursement for expenses, or 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.

Defense 3: Digital Evidence Challenges

Financial crime prosecutions increasingly depend on digital evidence — 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; whether the forensic methodology used to extract and analyze the digital evidence is reliable and reproducible; and whether the attribution of specific digital actions to the defendant is established beyond a reasonable doubt — because 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 (not a government entity) and the offense is a misdemeanor, the victim and defendant may enter into a civil compromise — typically involving 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, but it is 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 — particularly first-offense fraud and embezzlement cases where police file a complaint application rather than making an arrest — begin with a summons for a clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A. A denied complaint means no CORI entry and no arraignment — the most protective outcome in any financial crime case. For licensed professionals whose boards treat crimes of dishonesty with extraordinary severity — the Board of Bar Overseers, BORIM, FINRA — the clerk-magistrate denial is the only outcome that fully protects the professional license. At the hearing, defense counsel presents the defendant’s professional credentials, the restitution paid, the absence of prior history, and a direct challenge to the prosecution’s evidence. See: A Practitioner’s Guide to Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings.

Collateral Consequences for Licensed Professionals and Financial Industry Employees

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:

• Board of Bar Overseers (BBO): attorneys must report 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
• Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM): physicians must report any criminal charge within 30 days. A financial crime charge — even involving conduct outside the practice of medicine — is a BORIM reportable event that 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. A CWOF or conviction on a financial crime charge can result in permanent bar from the securities industry
• Federal security clearances: theft, fraud, and embezzlement are among the most heavily weighted adverse factors in federal security clearance adjudications under the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. A financial crime charge — whether or not it results in a conviction — requires disclosure on SF-86 forms and can result in clearance revocation
• Immigration: financial crimes that constitute crimes of moral turpitude — larceny by false pretenses, fraud, embezzlement — can render a non-citizen inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) or deportable as a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See: Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges

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:

• BMC Central Division — Financial District, Downtown Crossing, and Back Bay financial fraud cases; high concentration of technology sector and financial services employee embezzlement cases
• Cambridge District Court — Kendall Square biotech and technology sector cases; startup and venture-backed company financial fraud
• Woburn District Court — Burlington corporate park embezzlement and fraud cases; technology company employee cases
• Dedham District Court — Wellesley, Needham, and Westwood financial professional cases; Route 1 contractor fraud cases
• Newton District Court — Newton medical and financial professional cases
• Waltham District Court — Route 128 biotech and technology sector financial fraud cases
• Framingham District Court — MetroWest corporate professional cases; Route 9 and Turnpike corridor fraud cases
• Quincy District Court — South Shore financial and medical professional cases; 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: 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy office: 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. Available 24 hours a day.