COLJI-Crim. H:67.8

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “exempt person or organization,” as a defense to collection of prohibited

fees by a loan finder.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. the defendant was [a supervised financial organization or one

of its employees, acting within the scope of his [her]

employment] [a person duly licensed to make supervised

loans] [a business development corporation] [a licensed

pawnbroker, acting as such] [a governmental entity or

employee thereof, acting in his [her] official capacity] [a

mortgage broker, acting as such].

The prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,

that the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In

order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond

a reasonable doubt, the above numbered condition.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has

failed to meet this burden of proof, then the prosecution has failed to prove

the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense, which

is an essential element of collection of prohibited fees by a loan finder. In

that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of that offense.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has

met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved the defendant’s

conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In that event, your

verdict concerning the charge of collection of prohibited fees by a loan

finder must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has

met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of that

offense.