holding that, in the context of a prosecution involving theft by deception, when the defendant obtains money through intentional falsehoods, "intent to repay does not necessarily negate the crime of false pretenses" and thus the fact that the defendant "might have had plans to pay the creditors back is of no moment."
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. McCullough1996
holding that, in the context of a prosecution involving theft by deception, when the defendant obtains money through intentional falsehoods, "intent to repay does not necessarily negate the crime of false pretenses" and thus the fact that the defendant "might have had plans to pay the creditors back is of no moment."
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. McCulloughFull title:PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date published: Jan 1, 1996
The crime was completed at that time, regardless of the later return of the funds. See generally Commonwealth…
Com. v. FisherIntent to deprive persons of their property is an essential element of theft by deception. Commonwealth v.…