Michigan Theft Crime Attorney
Lansing Theft Attorney
In our American system of criminal justice, you are presumed innocent of all crimes until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecuting official. If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a criminal offense, do NOT, under any circumstances, talk to the police. Reveal only your name, date of birth, address, and telephone number to the police, and do NOT consent to a police search or government official search of your body, home, telephone, computer, or vehicle without a search warrant. If you are facing questioning from a police officer or prosecuting official, contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580, and let Eric J. Sheppard fight for your rights.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a theft offense, then you need to contact Lansing theft attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all theft cases. Theft cases reach all areas of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status. Police officers are often called to the scene of theft offenses allegedly occurring throughout various retail outlets, including malls and other multi-store facilities. It is vitally important that you do not make any incriminating statements to police officers or loss prevention agents. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580 if you find yourself involved in a theft offense investigation and the police are called to the scene.
LARCENY
Most Michigan theft offenses can be generally identified as the crime of larceny. In order to prove larceny, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took someone else’s property.
(2) Second, that the property was taken without consent.
(3) Third, that there was some movement of the property. [It does not matter whether the defendant actually kept the property or whether the property was taken off the premises].
(4) Fourth, that at the time the property was taken, the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
(5) Fifth, that the property had a fair market value at the time it was taken of:
(a) $20,000 or more.
(b) $1,000 or more, but less than $20,000.
(c) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(d) some amount less than $200.
NOTE: property values may be added together in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt
NOTE: This is a specific intent crime.
When permanent deprivation of the victim’s property is in dispute, note the ruling in People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 178, 804 NW2d 757 (2010), in which the court stated that “the intent to permanently deprive includes the retention of property without the purpose to return it within a reasonable time or the retention of property with the intent to return the property on the condition that the owner pay some compensation for its return.” When the issue is contested, the court may find it useful to expand on the definition of “permanently deprive” by giving examples such as the following:
(a) withhold property or cause it to be withheld from a person permanently, or for such a period of time that the person loses a significant part of its value, use, or benefit, or
(b) dispose of the property in such a way that it is unlikely that the owner will get it back, or
(c) keep the property with the intent to give it back only if the owner buys or leases it back, or pays a reward for it, or
(d) sell, give, promise, or transfer any interest in the property, or
(e) make the property subject to the claim of a person other than the owner.
NOTE: The Fair Market Value Test, M Crim JI 22.1, should be given when applicable.
Cite:
M Crim JI 23.1
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356.
Case Law
People v Kyllonen, 402 Mich 135, 262 NW2d 2 (1978); People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 178, 804 NW2d 757 (2010); People v Hatch, 156 Mich App 265, 401 NW2d 344 (1986); People v Long, 93 Mich App 579, 286 NW2d 909 (1979); People v Lerma, 66 Mich App 566, 239 NW2d 424 (1976); People v Wilbourne, 44 Mich App 376, 205 NW2d 250 (1973); People v Fisher, 32 Mich App 28, 188 NW2d 75 (1971); People v Alexander, 17 Mich App 30, 169 NW2d 190 (1969); People v Anderson, 7 Mich App 513, 152 NW2d 40 (1967).
Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions
MICHIGAN LARCENY IN A BUILDING ATTORNEY - MCL 750.360
You may be convicted of a felony for larceny in a building for stealing in any of the following locations:
**Source MCL 750.360
NOTE: There is no value threshold for larceny in a building. State prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion in charging you with larceny in a building - no matter the value of the item or items allegedly stolen. This means that no matter whether a pack of gum or a $1 million dollar piece of jewelry is stolen, the prosecutor can charge you with a felony for larceny in a building for any theft from a building as listed above.
MICHIGAN LARCENY FROM A PERSON ATTORNEY - MCL 750.357
Yet another common theft offense in Michigan is larceny from a person. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed larceny from a person, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took someone else’s property.
(2) Second, that the defendant took the property without consent.
(3) Third, that the defendant moved the property, but it does not matter whether the defendant actually kept the property.
(4) Fourth, that the defendant took the property from [name complainant]’s person or from [his / her] immediate presence. Immediate presence means that the property was physically connected to [name complainant] or was right next to [him / her].
(5) Fifth, that at the time it was taken, the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
NOTE: Consistent with People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 682; 837 NW2d 415 (2013), the instruction is modified to delete “immediate area of control” from paragraph (5), and to add a plain-English version of the definition supplied by the Supreme Court––Immediate presence means having no object or space intervening, nearest or next––to that same paragraph.
History
M Crim JI 23.3 (formerly CJI2d 23.3) was CJI 23:2:01. Amended December 2014.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.357
Case Law
People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 682; 837 NW2d 415 (2013), People v Chamblis, 395 Mich 408; 236 NW2d 473 (1975); People v Gould, 384 Mich 71; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); People v Gadson, 348 Mich 307; 83 NW2d 227 (1957); People v Wallace, 173 Mich App 420, 426; 434 NW2d 422 (1988).
If you are being investigated for larceny in a building, it is important that you hire an aggressive and experience larceny in a building attorney to represent your interests. Call us immediately at 517-618-1580.
RETAIL FRAUD
MICHIGAN RETAIL FRAUD ATTORNEY - MCL 750.356c and MCL 750.356d
The other large category for theft offenses is retail fraud. Unlike larceny in a building, retail fraud crimes are designated by a threshold value. For retail fraud cases involving money or goods that has a value of less than $1000, the crimes are designated as misdemeanors. For retail fraud cases involving money or goods that has a value of more than $1000, the crimes are designated as felonies.
In order to be convicted of retail fraud, the prosecutor must show the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took some property that the store offered for sale.
(2) Second, that the defendant moved the property. Any movement is enough. It does not matter whether the defendant actually got the property past the cashier or out of the store.
(3) Third, that the defendant intended to steal the property.1 By “intended to steal,” I mean that the defendant intended to permanently take the property from the store without the store’s consent.2
(4) Fourth, that this happened either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store, while the store was open to the public.
(5) Fifth, that the price of the property was:
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
NOTE: The fact-finder may add together the prices of property taken in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTE: This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged theft of property.
NOTE: This a specific intent crime.
NOTE: When the issue is contested, the court may find it useful to expand on the definition of permanently deprive. See the definitions listed in the Use Note under M Crim JI 23.1, Larceny.
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Case Law
People v Munn, 198 Mich App 726, 499 NW2d 459 (1993).
Cite:
M Crim JI 23.13
Other Common Retail Fraud Crimes:
Retail Fraud—Price Switching
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant altered or switched a price tag [or in some other way misrepresented the price of property].
(2) Second, that the defendant did this intending either to pay less than the actual price for the property or not to pay for the property at all.*
(3) Third, that this happened either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store, while the store was open to the public.
(4) Fourth, that the difference between the sale price and the price the defendant intended to pay was:
[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses.]
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]
(5) [You may add together the amounts unlawfully taken in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.]
Use Note
This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged price switching.
*The statutory language makes this a specific intent crime.
History
M Crim JI 23.14 (formerly CJI2d 23.14) was CJI 23:8:02; amended September, 1999, to reflect changes made by 1998 PA 311, eff. January 1, 1999.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Retail Fraud - False Exchange
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant exchanged or tried to exchange property that had not been paid for and that belonged to the store. It does not matter whether the defendant tried to exchange it for money or other property.
(2) Second, that the defendant did this with the intent to defraud or cheat the store.*
(3) Third, that this happened during store hours, either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store.
(4) Fourth, that the [amount of money / value of the property] that the defendant obtained or attempted to obtain was:
[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses:]
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]
(5) [You may add together amounts obtained or attempted to be obtained in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.]
Use Note
This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged false exchange.
*The statutory language makes this a specific intent crime.
History
M Crim JI 23.15 (formerly CJI2d 23.15) was CJI 23:8:03; amended September, 1999, to reflect changes made by 1998 PA 311, eff. January 1, 1999.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions
For some individuals, stealing is related to a substance abuse issue as the individual engages in drug-seeking behavior to fuel their addiction. These individuals need drug and alcohol treatment.
For other individuals, stealing is a psychological issue. The theft is not about the item of personal property itself or any greed or desire to steal the personal property. The theft stems from impulse control and depression. Impulse control is listed on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). These individuals need treatment and counseling to address their mental health issues.
Civil Demand - MCL 600.2953
If you or your minor child are accused of retail fraud and receive a letter from a merchant demanding a civil demand under MCL 600.2953 et seq, then you need to contact legal counsel right away to evaluate the situation and properly advise you on the appropriate action that you need to take on this issue. First, you are innocent until proven guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And you have not been found responsible for any wrongdoing in any other court of law. Second, under the law, the merchant may only recover the "full retail price of unrecovered property or recovered property that is not in salable condition." MCL 600.2953(1).
In many retail fraud situations, the property in question is recovered right away and is in full "salable" condition. Further, a merchant may only recover the amount for which a person is civilly liable if a police report is filed with law enforcement setting forth facts alleging that a person committed retail fraud in the first, second, or third degree, regardless of the outcome of any criminal action. MCL 600.2953(8). Lastly, a merchant may not recover any civil damages for any act of retail fraud if the merchant violated Section 3 of the Pricing and Advertising of Consumer Items Act 449 of 1976, MCL 445.353, with regard to the item allegedly stolen and the violation was not caused by the person allegedly committing the retail fraud. MCL 600.2953(9).
The bottom line is that if you receive such a civil demand letter or notice, then contact Retail Fraud Attorney Eric J. Sheppard right away at 517-618-1580.
Theft offense cases can result in grave and serious consequences and require an attorney with knowledge and experience in obtaining desirable results. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580.
The Law Office of Eric J. Sheppard
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321
Lansing Theft Attorney
In our American system of criminal justice, you are presumed innocent of all crimes until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecuting official. If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a criminal offense, do NOT, under any circumstances, talk to the police. Reveal only your name, date of birth, address, and telephone number to the police, and do NOT consent to a police search or government official search of your body, home, telephone, computer, or vehicle without a search warrant. If you are facing questioning from a police officer or prosecuting official, contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580, and let Eric J. Sheppard fight for your rights.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a theft offense, then you need to contact Lansing theft attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all theft cases. Theft cases reach all areas of society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status. Police officers are often called to the scene of theft offenses allegedly occurring throughout various retail outlets, including malls and other multi-store facilities. It is vitally important that you do not make any incriminating statements to police officers or loss prevention agents. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580 if you find yourself involved in a theft offense investigation and the police are called to the scene.
LARCENY
Most Michigan theft offenses can be generally identified as the crime of larceny. In order to prove larceny, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took someone else’s property.
(2) Second, that the property was taken without consent.
(3) Third, that there was some movement of the property. [It does not matter whether the defendant actually kept the property or whether the property was taken off the premises].
(4) Fourth, that at the time the property was taken, the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
(5) Fifth, that the property had a fair market value at the time it was taken of:
(a) $20,000 or more.
(b) $1,000 or more, but less than $20,000.
(c) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(d) some amount less than $200.
NOTE: property values may be added together in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt
NOTE: This is a specific intent crime.
When permanent deprivation of the victim’s property is in dispute, note the ruling in People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 178, 804 NW2d 757 (2010), in which the court stated that “the intent to permanently deprive includes the retention of property without the purpose to return it within a reasonable time or the retention of property with the intent to return the property on the condition that the owner pay some compensation for its return.” When the issue is contested, the court may find it useful to expand on the definition of “permanently deprive” by giving examples such as the following:
(a) withhold property or cause it to be withheld from a person permanently, or for such a period of time that the person loses a significant part of its value, use, or benefit, or
(b) dispose of the property in such a way that it is unlikely that the owner will get it back, or
(c) keep the property with the intent to give it back only if the owner buys or leases it back, or pays a reward for it, or
(d) sell, give, promise, or transfer any interest in the property, or
(e) make the property subject to the claim of a person other than the owner.
NOTE: The Fair Market Value Test, M Crim JI 22.1, should be given when applicable.
Cite:
M Crim JI 23.1
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356.
Case Law
People v Kyllonen, 402 Mich 135, 262 NW2d 2 (1978); People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171, 178, 804 NW2d 757 (2010); People v Hatch, 156 Mich App 265, 401 NW2d 344 (1986); People v Long, 93 Mich App 579, 286 NW2d 909 (1979); People v Lerma, 66 Mich App 566, 239 NW2d 424 (1976); People v Wilbourne, 44 Mich App 376, 205 NW2d 250 (1973); People v Fisher, 32 Mich App 28, 188 NW2d 75 (1971); People v Alexander, 17 Mich App 30, 169 NW2d 190 (1969); People v Anderson, 7 Mich App 513, 152 NW2d 40 (1967).
Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions
MICHIGAN LARCENY IN A BUILDING ATTORNEY - MCL 750.360
You may be convicted of a felony for larceny in a building for stealing in any of the following locations:
- dwelling house,
- house trailer,
- office,
- store,
- gasoline service station,
- shop,
- warehouse,
- mill,
- factory,
- hotel,
- school,
- barn,
- granary,
- ship,
- boat,
- vessel,
- church,
- house of worship,
- locker room, or
- any building used by the public
**Source MCL 750.360
NOTE: There is no value threshold for larceny in a building. State prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion in charging you with larceny in a building - no matter the value of the item or items allegedly stolen. This means that no matter whether a pack of gum or a $1 million dollar piece of jewelry is stolen, the prosecutor can charge you with a felony for larceny in a building for any theft from a building as listed above.
MICHIGAN LARCENY FROM A PERSON ATTORNEY - MCL 750.357
Yet another common theft offense in Michigan is larceny from a person. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed larceny from a person, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took someone else’s property.
(2) Second, that the defendant took the property without consent.
(3) Third, that the defendant moved the property, but it does not matter whether the defendant actually kept the property.
(4) Fourth, that the defendant took the property from [name complainant]’s person or from [his / her] immediate presence. Immediate presence means that the property was physically connected to [name complainant] or was right next to [him / her].
(5) Fifth, that at the time it was taken, the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
NOTE: Consistent with People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 682; 837 NW2d 415 (2013), the instruction is modified to delete “immediate area of control” from paragraph (5), and to add a plain-English version of the definition supplied by the Supreme Court––Immediate presence means having no object or space intervening, nearest or next––to that same paragraph.
History
M Crim JI 23.3 (formerly CJI2d 23.3) was CJI 23:2:01. Amended December 2014.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.357
Case Law
People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich 669, 682; 837 NW2d 415 (2013), People v Chamblis, 395 Mich 408; 236 NW2d 473 (1975); People v Gould, 384 Mich 71; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); People v Gadson, 348 Mich 307; 83 NW2d 227 (1957); People v Wallace, 173 Mich App 420, 426; 434 NW2d 422 (1988).
If you are being investigated for larceny in a building, it is important that you hire an aggressive and experience larceny in a building attorney to represent your interests. Call us immediately at 517-618-1580.
RETAIL FRAUD
MICHIGAN RETAIL FRAUD ATTORNEY - MCL 750.356c and MCL 750.356d
The other large category for theft offenses is retail fraud. Unlike larceny in a building, retail fraud crimes are designated by a threshold value. For retail fraud cases involving money or goods that has a value of less than $1000, the crimes are designated as misdemeanors. For retail fraud cases involving money or goods that has a value of more than $1000, the crimes are designated as felonies.
In order to be convicted of retail fraud, the prosecutor must show the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant took some property that the store offered for sale.
(2) Second, that the defendant moved the property. Any movement is enough. It does not matter whether the defendant actually got the property past the cashier or out of the store.
(3) Third, that the defendant intended to steal the property.1 By “intended to steal,” I mean that the defendant intended to permanently take the property from the store without the store’s consent.2
(4) Fourth, that this happened either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store, while the store was open to the public.
(5) Fifth, that the price of the property was:
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
NOTE: The fact-finder may add together the prices of property taken in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTE: This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged theft of property.
NOTE: This a specific intent crime.
NOTE: When the issue is contested, the court may find it useful to expand on the definition of permanently deprive. See the definitions listed in the Use Note under M Crim JI 23.1, Larceny.
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Case Law
People v Munn, 198 Mich App 726, 499 NW2d 459 (1993).
Cite:
M Crim JI 23.13
Other Common Retail Fraud Crimes:
Retail Fraud—Price Switching
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant altered or switched a price tag [or in some other way misrepresented the price of property].
(2) Second, that the defendant did this intending either to pay less than the actual price for the property or not to pay for the property at all.*
(3) Third, that this happened either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store, while the store was open to the public.
(4) Fourth, that the difference between the sale price and the price the defendant intended to pay was:
[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses.]
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]
(5) [You may add together the amounts unlawfully taken in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.]
Use Note
This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged price switching.
*The statutory language makes this a specific intent crime.
History
M Crim JI 23.14 (formerly CJI2d 23.14) was CJI 23:8:02; amended September, 1999, to reflect changes made by 1998 PA 311, eff. January 1, 1999.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Retail Fraud - False Exchange
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant exchanged or tried to exchange property that had not been paid for and that belonged to the store. It does not matter whether the defendant tried to exchange it for money or other property.
(2) Second, that the defendant did this with the intent to defraud or cheat the store.*
(3) Third, that this happened during store hours, either inside the store or in the immediate area around the store.
(4) Fourth, that the [amount of money / value of the property] that the defendant obtained or attempted to obtain was:
[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses:]
(a) $1,000 or more.
(b) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(c) some amount less than $200.
[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]
(5) [You may add together amounts obtained or attempted to be obtained in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.]
Use Note
This instruction is designed for use for first-, second-, and third-degree retail fraud cases involving alleged false exchange.
*The statutory language makes this a specific intent crime.
History
M Crim JI 23.15 (formerly CJI2d 23.15) was CJI 23:8:03; amended September, 1999, to reflect changes made by 1998 PA 311, eff. January 1, 1999.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.356c, .356d.
Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions
For some individuals, stealing is related to a substance abuse issue as the individual engages in drug-seeking behavior to fuel their addiction. These individuals need drug and alcohol treatment.
For other individuals, stealing is a psychological issue. The theft is not about the item of personal property itself or any greed or desire to steal the personal property. The theft stems from impulse control and depression. Impulse control is listed on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). These individuals need treatment and counseling to address their mental health issues.
Civil Demand - MCL 600.2953
If you or your minor child are accused of retail fraud and receive a letter from a merchant demanding a civil demand under MCL 600.2953 et seq, then you need to contact legal counsel right away to evaluate the situation and properly advise you on the appropriate action that you need to take on this issue. First, you are innocent until proven guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And you have not been found responsible for any wrongdoing in any other court of law. Second, under the law, the merchant may only recover the "full retail price of unrecovered property or recovered property that is not in salable condition." MCL 600.2953(1).
In many retail fraud situations, the property in question is recovered right away and is in full "salable" condition. Further, a merchant may only recover the amount for which a person is civilly liable if a police report is filed with law enforcement setting forth facts alleging that a person committed retail fraud in the first, second, or third degree, regardless of the outcome of any criminal action. MCL 600.2953(8). Lastly, a merchant may not recover any civil damages for any act of retail fraud if the merchant violated Section 3 of the Pricing and Advertising of Consumer Items Act 449 of 1976, MCL 445.353, with regard to the item allegedly stolen and the violation was not caused by the person allegedly committing the retail fraud. MCL 600.2953(9).
The bottom line is that if you receive such a civil demand letter or notice, then contact Retail Fraud Attorney Eric J. Sheppard right away at 517-618-1580.
Theft offense cases can result in grave and serious consequences and require an attorney with knowledge and experience in obtaining desirable results. Contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580.
The Law Office of Eric J. Sheppard
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321