Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.2-15

The defendant is charged [in count__] with the unlawful completion of a payment card. The

statute defining this offense imposes punishment on

any person, other than the cardholder, having under (his/her) possession, custody or

control two or more incomplete payment cards, or possessing a purported distinctive

element of a payment card, with intent to complete such incomplete payment cards

without the consent of the issuer.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Possession of incomplete cards

The first element is that the defendant, who is not the cardholder, possessed two or more

incomplete payment cards, or a purported distinctive element of a payment card.

“Payment card” means either a credit card or a debit card. “Credit card” means any instrument

or device, whether known as a credit card, as a credit plate, or by any other name, issued with or

without fee by an issuer for the use of a cardholder in obtaining money, goods, services or

anything else of value on credit. “Debit card” means any card, code, device or other means of

access, or any combination thereof, that is issued or authorized for use to debit an asset account

held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and that may be used by the cardholder to

obtain money, goods, services or anything else of value. “Cardholder” means the person named

on the face of a payment card to whom or for whose benefit the payment card is issued by an

issuer.

A payment card is “incomplete” if part of the matter other than the signature of the cardholder,

which an issuer, or any issuer in a group of issuers utilizing a common distinctive element or

elements in payment cards issued by all members of such group, requires to appear on the

payment card, before it can be used by a cardholder, has not yet been stamped, embossed,

imprinted or written on it.

A “distinctive element” of a payment card is any material or component used in the fabrication

of payment cards, which, by virtue of such element’s chemical or physical composition, color or

design, is unique to the payment cards issued by a particular issuer or group of issuers utilizing a

common distinctive element or elements in payment cards issued by all members of such group.

Element 2 - Intent to complete

The second element is that the defendant intended to complete such incomplete payment cards.

A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to

cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Element 3 - Without consent of issuer

The third element is that the defendant did not have the consent of the issuer. “Issuer” means the

person or entity issuing a payment card, or a duly authorized agent. A person does an act

“without consent of another person” when (he/she) lacks such other person’s agreement or assent

to engage in the act.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant possessed two

or more incomplete payment cards, or a purported distinctive element of a payment card, 2)

(he/she) had the intent to complete the cards, and 3) (he/she) did not have the consent of an

issuer.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of unlawful completion of a payment card, then you shall find the defendant guilty.

On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 Defined in General Statutes § 53a-128f.

2 Id.