An online sale dispute can become a criminal fraud case when the other person deceived you on purpose at the time of the deal, for example with a statement they knew was false or a promise they never meant to keep, and you handed over money or property because you relied on it. A sale that simply fell apart, such as a late shipment, a canceled order, or a slow payment, is not fraud by itself. California law draws the line at intent, not at the outcome.

What the prosecution has to prove

Theft by false pretenses is defined in Penal Code section 484 and Penal Code section 532 as knowingly and designedly defrauding another person of money or property by a false or fraudulent representation or pretense. This is the same offense covered generally on theft by false pretenses. CALCRIM No. 1804 breaks the crime into three parts the prosecution must prove: the other person knowingly and intentionally deceived you, they did it to get you to hand over the item or the payment, and you actually gave it up because you relied on what they told you. Reliance means the falsehood was an important part of the reason you parted with your money or property, though it does not have to be the only reason.

The same instruction lists what counts as a false pretense when it is done with intent to deceive: giving information the person knows is false, making a misrepresentation recklessly without information that justifies believing it, not giving information the person had a duty to give, or making a promise without intending to keep it.

The rule that separates a bad deal from a crime

Timing is the key to this question. If someone promises to ship an item, or promises a payment will clear, that promise is a criminal false pretense only if they did not intend to keep it at the time they made it. In People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, the California Supreme Court held that a promise made without intent to perform can be a false pretense, and it set the limit that matters here. A misrepresentation made innocently or by oversight supports a false-pretenses prosecution no more than an innocent breach of contract does, and whether the pretense was a promise about the future or a claim about a present fact, intent “must be proved in both instances by something more than mere proof of nonperformance or actual falsity.”

CALCRIM No. 1804 gives jurors the same rule: proof that someone did not perform as promised is not, by itself, enough to prove they never intended to perform, and proof that a statement was false is not, by itself, enough to prove intent to deceive. In practice, a seller who genuinely tried to ship an item and failed, or a buyer whose payment genuinely bounced, has not committed this crime just because the deal fell through. What changes the answer is evidence of the other person’s intent when the deal was made. What happened afterward can be part of that evidence, but nonperformance alone is not enough.

Why the written record matters

Penal Code section 532(b) adds a proof rule for a false pretense expressed in words without a false token or false writing. A conviction then requires at least one of the following: the pretense, or a note or memorandum of it, in a writing “subscribed by or in the handwriting of” the accused person; the testimony of two witnesses; or one witness plus corroborating circumstances. CALCRIM No. 1804 states these alternatives for jurors, together with the case where the pretense came with a false writing or false token.

An online sale usually leaves a record of exactly what was said: the listing, the messages, and the payment history. The statute does not say whether a typed message sent from an account counts as a writing “subscribed by” its sender, so do not assume a chat log settles that question. Where a single witness testifies, the same records can be offered as corroborating circumstances, and CALCRIM’s commentary on this instruction says jurors may consider “the entire conduct of the defendant” in deciding whether the pretense is corroborated.

Evidence that matters in an online sale dispute

Keep these records in their original form:

  • The exact listing or ad text, including any claims about condition, authenticity, or shipping.
  • The full message or chat thread with the other party, not just a summary of it.
  • Payment app or platform transaction records and their timestamps.
  • Shipping and tracking information, or the lack of any.
  • Whether the other party made a specific, checkable claim (a brand, a serial number, a ship date) rather than ordinary sales talk.
  • Any prior transaction history or feedback involving the same person.

For fraud charges beyond false pretenses and how penalties are set, see fraud defense. If you are already facing a charge and believe you never intended to deceive anyone, the claim of right defense page covers that defense in more depth.

If an online sale you were part of has turned into a police report or a criminal accusation, Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review the messages, listing, and payment records in your case. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss what happened.