The Crime of Cheating under Section 817.29, Florida Statute

The criminal statute for cheating by false pretenses, section 817.29, a third-degree felony, provides:

Cheating.–Whoever is convicted of any gross fraud or cheat at common law shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

In Darwish v. State, 937 So. 2d 789, 792 (Fla 2nd DCA 2006) the court noted the offense of “cheating” by false pretenses under Section 817.29 is “relatively obscure” with only a “handful of reported decisions that have addressed Florida’s cheating statute.” The Darwish court sought guidance concerning the elements of the cheating offense by examining decisions that have construed other Florida statutes relating to obtaining money or property by false pretenses.

The Darwish court further noted:

“Section 2.01, Florida Statutes (2004), provides, with certain exceptions, that the common and statute laws of England, as of July 4, 1776, are in force in Florida. Therefore, “the English Statute 30 Geo. II c. 24 (1757), the first section of which makes it a crime to obtain money or goods with intent to cheat or defraud by false and untrue pretenses, is the law of this State.” State v. Peterson, 192 So. 2d 293, 294-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).

Cheating by false pretenses may be defined as “[t]he intentional obtaining of both the possession and ownership of money, goods, wares, or merchandise by means of misrepresentations, with the intent to defraud.” Black’s Law Dictionary 252 (8th ed. 2004).”

The Darwish court noted that in Finlay v. State, 152 Fla. 396, 12 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1943), the defendant was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, section 817.01, Florida Statutes (1941). Id. When considering the defendant’s challenge to his conviction, the Florida Supreme Court listed the following five elements of obtaining money under false pretenses: 

“(1) false representation of a past or existing fact;

(2) knowledge of its falsity;

(3) intent to defraud;

(4) reliance on the misstatement by the other party; and

(5) surrender by the other party of property because of the representation.”

Id. (citing Finlay at 113; see also 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 19.7(c) (2d ed. 2003) (discussing the element of reliance in connection with the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses).

Attorney for the Crime of Cheating under Section 817.29

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm represent clients charged with the third-degree felony of cheating, section 817.29, Florida Statutes. We also represent clients on the related charges of:

• scheming to defraud and obtaining property thereby, section 817.034(4)(a)(3); and
• initiating the theft of property and trafficking in that property, section 812.019(2).

The attorneys at Sammis law Firm represent clients throughout the greater Tampa Bay area and central Florida. We have offices in Tampa in Hillsborough County, Clearwater in Pinellas County, New Port Richey in Pasco County, and Winter Park in Orlando County, FL.

Call 813-250-0500.

The Reliance Elements of Cheating under Section 817.29

In Darwish v. State, 937 So. 2d 789, 792 (Fla 2nd DCA 2006), the court noted that “[d]eception is the essence of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses.” Id. at 793 (quoting Ex parte Stirrup, 155 Fla. 173, 19 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 1944).”

As a result, “proof of ‘a causal relation between the representation or statement made and the delivery of the property’ is required to sustain a conviction for this crime. Id.

“Where the evidence fails to show that the victim was induced to part with money or property in reliance on a misstatement of fact by the defendant, a conviction for obtaining money or property by false pretenses may not be sustained.” Id.(citing Collins v. State, 319 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (reversing conviction for larceny by trick where there was no showing of reliance on any representation made by the defendant)).

“On the other hand, a conviction for such an offense may be upheld where the element of reliance is proven or conceded.” Id. (citing Finlay, 152 Fla. 396, 12 So. 2d 112 (affirming conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses where defendant’s misrepresentations of fact induced donor to make a charitable contribution)).

Likewise, in Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318, 323-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), the court affirmed a conviction for grand larceny by false pretenses where building contractor who obtained construction draw from bank by means of false lien waiver conceded that he knew that the bank would rely on the waiver.

In Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), the court affirmed a conviction for grand larceny by obtaining money by false pretenses where the evidence showed that victim would not have given money to defendant absent defendant’s false representations.

In Florida, the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses has been merged into the larceny statute.See id. at 921; Rosengarten v. State, 171 So. 2d 591, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

This article was last updated on Thursday, October 8, 2026.