The Supreme Court held that the fact that both
N.J.S.A. 2A:109-1b and N.J.S.A. 2A:111-43 would
apply to the same type of conduct and that the credit card
act was a later enactment dealing specifically with
offenses stemming from the possession of use of credit
cards does not mandate a conclusion that prosecution
under N.J.S.A. 2A:109-1b was precluded. Specific
conduct may violate more than one statute.
C. Unauthorized Use of a Credit Card
Where the owner of the credit card had no knowledge
of its use in a car rental transaction, and where the rental
agency, unaware of the perpetrated fraud, furnished the
automobile to the user, such unauthorized use amounted
to a conversion and a criminal offense. Zuppa v. Hertz
Corporation, 111 N.J. Super. 419, 421, 423 (Cty. Ct.
1970). Unauthorized use may also result in disbarment
even without a criminal conviction. In re Maurello, 121
N.J. 466, 479-82 (1990).
XI. DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
This section of the Code, which is directed at various
types of deceptive business practices, replaces a series of
unrelated statutes dealing with such practices. It extends
criminal liability in three ways. First, it eliminates the
necessity that the defendant actually obtained property
as a consequence of the deception. Second, it eliminates
or dilutes the need for proof that the deceiver knew about
the falsity. Third, in certain situations, it dispenses with
the need for proof of misrepresentation. See II, Final
Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision
Commission, Commentary, at 243 (1971).
Subsections (f) and (g) of this section were deleted by
Amendment. P.L. 1981, c. 290.
A. Definitions
“Adulterated” is defined as varying from the standard
of composition or quality prescribed by or pursuant to
any statute providing criminal penalties for such
variance, or set by established commercial usage.
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7.
“Mislabeled” is defined as varying from the standard
of truth or disclosure in labeling prescribed by or
pursuant to any statute providing criminal penalties for
such variance, or set by established commercial usage. Id.
B. OffensesIt is a disorderly persons offense for a person who, in
course of business,a. Uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure,
or any other device for falsely determining or recording
any quality or quantity. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7a; N.J.S.A.
2C:21-7.b. Sells, offers or exposes for sale, or delivers less than
the represented quantity of any commodity or service.
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7b; N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7.c. Takes or attempts to take more than the
represented quantity of any commodity or service when
as a buyer he furnishes the weight or measure. N.J.S.A.
2C:21-7c; N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7.d. Sells, offers or exposes for sale adulterated or
mislabeled commodities. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7d; N.J.S.A.
2C:21-7.e. Makes a false or misleading statement in any
advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial
segment thereof for the purpose of promoting the
purchase or sale of property or services. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-
7e; N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7.It is a fourth degree crime for a person who, in the
course of business,a. makes a false or misleading written statement for
the purpose of obtaining property or credit. N.J.S.A.
2C:21-7h; N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7;b. makes a false or misleading written statement for
the purpose of promoting the sale of securities, or omits
information required by law to be disclosed in written
documents relating to securities. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7.N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7h was used in a prosecution against
the manager of a car dealership who accepted used cars as
trade-ins and then took as part of the purchase price of the
new cars sold, money intended to pay the outstanding
liens on the old cars. State v. Damiano, 322 N.J. Super.
22, 32-33 (App. Div. 1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 396
(2000). The defendant then resold the used cars to new
customers without first paying off the existing liens and
without disclosing the fact that the liens remained
unpaid to the buyers. Id. Since the issue of the
defendant’s intent to pay off the liens on the trade-ins was
unclear, the court held that the defendant would have