Illuminated classical building facade with Corinthian columns against twilight sky.

Defending Fraud Cases in Murrieta and Southwest Riverside County

Fraud

Fraud is an intent crime. The prosecution must prove not just that a misrepresentation occurred, but that it was made knowingly, with specific intent to deceive, and that the victim relied on it to their detriment. Each of those elements is a potential defense. At the Law Office of Nic Cocis, we defend fraud charges in Murrieta and throughout Southwest Riverside County with a focus on the specific theory of fraud alleged and what the evidence actually establishes about intent.

The Range of California Fraud Charges

California doesn’t have a single fraud statute. Fraud is prosecuted under a range of overlapping provisions, and which statute applies depends on the type of conduct alleged.

Penal Code § 532 — theft by false pretense

The core fraud statute. A person who obtains money, labor, or property by false or fraudulent representation or pretense, with intent to defraud, is guilty of theft by false pretense. The amount determines whether it’s petty theft or grand theft, and the prosecution must prove that the victim actually relied on the false representation.

Insurance fraud — Penal Code § 550

 Making false or fraudulent insurance claims. It’s a wobbler for amounts under $950 and a felony for larger amounts, carrying up to five years in state prison. Insurance fraud encompasses workers’ compensation fraud, auto insurance fraud, health insurance fraud, and property insurance fraud.

Real estate and mortgage fraud — Penal Code § 532f

Misrepresentations in real estate or mortgage transactions, including false statements on loan applications. Penalties escalate with the amount involved.

Check fraud — Penal Code § 476

Making, drawing, or delivering a check knowing the account lacks sufficient funds with intent to defraud. The reliance and intent elements are both contested regularly in check fraud cases.

Wire fraud and mail fraud — 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343

Federal fraud charges that arise when the alleged scheme used the mail or electronic communications — which covers virtually any modern commercial fraud scheme. Federal wire fraud carries up to 20 years per count. Federal fraud charges often arise alongside or instead of state charges when the conduct crossed state lines, involved federally insured financial institutions, or was investigated by federal agencies.

The Intent Element — Where Fraud Defenses Live

The prosecution must prove specific fraudulent intent in every fraud case. A bad business decision, an optimistic projection that didn’t pan out, a contract dispute where one party didn’t perform as promised, or a genuine mistake in a financial representation are not fraud — even if someone lost money. The distinction between fraud and a civil dispute turns entirely on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the alleged misrepresentation.

We build the defense around the legitimate explanation for the conduct at issue. What was the business context? What did the defendant believe at the time? What was the basis for the representation made? These questions go directly to intent, and they’re examined through documents, communications, and the surrounding circumstances.

How We Can Help with Fraud Charges

Challenging the fraudulent intent element through business context and contemporaneous communications
Contesting the reliance element where the alleged victim didn’t actually rely on the representation
Examining the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation
Defending against both state and federal fraud charges
Addressing insurance fraud allegations through independent review of claim documentation
Advising on professional licensing consequences alongside the criminal defense

01

Intent Investigation

We examine every document and communication that bears on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the alleged fraud. Internal emails, business records, and contemporaneous communications frequently tell a different story than the prosecution’s narrative.

Two men at a desk, one in a suit taking notes, legal documents and scales of justice present.

02

Reliance Challenge

The victim must have actually relied on the false representation. Where the alleged victim had independent information, conducted their own due diligence, or would have acted the same way regardless of the representation, the reliance element may not be satisfied.

Two professionals engaged in discussion over documents and a clipboard in an office setting.

03

Federal Exposure Assessment

Any fraud case with a federal dimension requires immediate assessment of federal exposure. Federal wire and mail fraud charges carry dramatically higher sentencing exposure than state fraud charges, and the decision about how to approach a case with both state and federal dimensions requires careful analysis.

Two individuals shaking hands over a wooden desk with legal documents, a pen, and a judge's gavel.

04

Negotiation and Trial

Fraud cases generate substantial documentary evidence that the prosecution must present coherently to a jury. We understand that evidence and know how to challenge it. Where negotiation is the right path, we engage with a full understanding of what the prosecution can prove. Where trial is appropriate, we’re prepared to try it.

Person signing contract papers with a pen, wooden gavel and another individual in background.

Facing Fraud Charges in Murrieta?

Contact the Law Office of Nic Cocis for a consultation. We serve clients in Murrieta, Temecula, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Winchester, Canyon Lake, French Valley, and throughout Southwest Riverside County.

Why Choose the Law Office of Nic Cocis?

Intent-Focused Defense

Understands that fraud cases are won or lost on the intent element

Federal Fraud Experience

Handles cases with federal wire and mail fraud dimensions

Former DA’s Office Intern

Knows how fraud cases are built and evaluated for prosecution

Multilingual Services

English, Romanian, and Spanish available

Frequently Asked Questions

The difference is intent at the time of the transaction. A breach of contract is a civil matter — one party failed to perform as promised, for whatever reason. Fraud requires that the defendant made a false representation knowing it was false, with intent to deceive, at the time the representation was made. A person who genuinely intended to perform a contract and later couldn’t because of circumstances hasn’t committed fraud. A person who promised performance knowing they had no intention or ability to deliver has. The prosecution must prove the fraudulent intent existed at the time of the representation, not in hindsight.

The statute of limitations for theft by false pretense under § 532 is generally three years for a felony and one year for a misdemeanor, running from the date the offense was committed or discovered, depending on the circumstances. California Penal Code § 803(c) extends the limitations period for fraud discovered after the fact: the period runs from the date of discovery when the fraud was concealed. In complex financial fraud cases, the discovery rule can significantly extend the prosecution’s window for filing charges. We assess limitations arguments in every fraud case where timing is a relevant factor.

Yes. Many fraud statutes criminalize the attempt or scheme, not just the completed loss. Federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 criminalizes a scheme to defraud — the use of interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme is the offense, whether or not the intended victim suffered an actual loss. California’s theft by false pretense does require that the victim actually parted with something of value in reliance on the misrepresentation, but other fraud statutes cover attempts and schemes without requiring a completed loss.

Areas We Serve

Illuminated neoclassical building facade with Corinthian columns at dusk, dark cloudy sky.