Your assessment is pretty far off, and doesn't accurately reflect the meaning of the language in the statute.

Let's deconstruct it, and go down the elements of the definition one-by-one...

1: "any credit card which is fictitious"

So, is this card 'fictitious'?

No. It's an actual credit card, attached to the actual and non-fraudulent AmEx account of the person whose name it bears.

2: "altered"

So, is this card 'altered'?

No. You did not take a credit card with information "ABC" on it and alter it so as to appear that it has information "XYZ" on it. Again, the card bears the legitimate and non-fraudulent information of the person presenting it, and is non-fraudulently linked to that person's legitimately-obtained credit card account.

And by "altered", I assure you the definition is not "any alteration whatsoever", rather, it will have to be a material alteration.

Meaning, do I go to jail if I write on my card in permanent marker? No. What about if I spill mustard on the card? No. The 'alteration' must be material, and made for some fraudulent purpose. Altering the name, or altering the account number, that sort of thing, is what is addressed and covered by this section. I assure you that neither the legislature, the statute, nor the state attorney give a rat's a$$ what color the card is.

That is simply not a criminal alteration under the definitions of this statute, and your argument is again disingenuously trying to blur the distinction between actual credit card fraud (e.g. accessing an account that is not yours) and what we're discussing here (which accessing your own account with a different colored card).

3: "forged"

So, is this card 'forged'?

This is the element on which most of your argument hangs. However, I'm afraid the answer is still "No".

The operative issue here is going to be one simple question: "Is it a real card?", meaning is what you see what you get. In this case, the card operates on the legitimately-obtained Amex account of the person presenting it, and bears the true and correct name, account number, and other information of the presenter. The only difference whatsoever in this situation is the color/design/whatever of the silly card itself, and that is not covered by this (nor any other) statute.

Your argument on this element is akin to saying that, if I take my Amex Platinum Card and spray-paint it black, that my credit card is now a criminal "forgery" under the definition of the statute. That argument necessarily fails. The operative facts will be whether the card is actually a working credit card, bearing the true and correct information of the person presenting it, and non-fraudulently linked to that person's legitimately-obtained account.

The state couldn't care less whether it's a fake Centurion card, as long as it's not a fake credit card. You are avoiding this distinction, and that is the operative issue here.

4: "any facsimile or false representation"

So, is this card a 'facsimile' or 'false representation'?

No. It is not a "facsimile" or "copy" of a legitimate credit card, it actually IS a legitimate credit card, bearing the true and correct information of the presenter, and non-fraudulently linked to that person's actual account. For the same reasons, it is not a "false representation" either, e.g. it is not something which is not a credit card but purports to be one. It actually is a fully working and functional credit card, bearing the true information of the presenter, and linked to his/her actual account.

Again, this statute doesn't care whether it's a fake Centurion card, as long it's a real credit card.

5: "depiction"

Is this card a "depiction" of a credit card?

No. It actually IS a legitimate credit card. See #4.

6: "any credit card which is stolen"

Is this card 'stolen'? No. This one is self-explanatory.

7: "obtained as part of a scheme to defraud"

Was this card obtained as part of a scheme to defraud? No. The meaning here is clear, and addresses a simple question: Was the card account obtained by a fraudulent scheme, e.g. applying for it using someone else's name and information? Or, pretending to be a home repair contractor and asking the homeowner for the credit card? That type of fact pattern is what this section addresses. Nothing of that sort is the case here.

8: "otherwise unlawfully obtained".

Is this card in any way unlawfully obtained? No. The cardholder whose account it is linked to ordered it on their own behalf, bearing their own true and correct information. They didn't steal it from another person, hijack a truck carrying credit cards, snatch it out of a waitress' back pocket, etc. etc..

And getting further into the meat of the larger issue here, you can't unlawfully obtain something that already belongs to you in first place, which in this case would be the stored information and account/spending access afforded you by your own credit card. Remember, a credit card is not currency with an inherent value, it's merely a tool whose sole value is it's use for accessing the underlying credit account. In this case, you're only accessing your own account, and you already possessed that access to begin with, regardless of what color the card is.

9: "which may or may not be embossed with account information or a company logo"

This one is actually great in this situation, because it clearly signals that the statute is wholly unconcerned with whether or not the card has any particular company logo or whatnot on it. All you're doing in this situation is making the card you non-fraudulently and legitimately carry look like another card from the same company.

This one really sinks your entire criminal argument, if you analyze it. The only possible suggestion anyone has propounded here so far as to how this situation would ever be 'illegal', was mere civil liability for copyright infringement. And even that's a non-starter as liability attaches to the manufacturer, and not to some random person carrying the infringing item. And in any event, that certainly doesn't address my point of contention here, which is that the Secret Service is not going to come arrest you for making it look like you have a Cent card when you only have a Green card.

But given this language regarding the immateriality of corporate logos for consideration under the statute, don't you see the logical next step here? If the logo is the only thing you're changing about the card (which is the case here, as all you're doing is making it *look* like you have a black card instead of whatever actual Amex card you carry) while all the material information is the same regardless of which card you're talking about, then that activity is probably NOT covered by the statute.

So, in summary, you keep trying to blur the distinction between actual credit card fraud and what we're discussing here, which is simply swapping one card color for another while keeping all the legitimate and material account information the same.

Provided we're limiting the discussion to simply swapping the card linked to your own account for one of a different color, while all the material information between the two remains the same, then there is simply NO crime here, and I'm sorry but nobody is going to jail for that.









,