## Facts

- Kevin D. Traster operated a computer consulting business and provided computer administration/consulting services to a law firm and to Demenno/Kerdoon Company (DK).
- At the law firm, Traster claimed it was not “in legal compliance” because it lacked sufficient Microsoft licenses and represented he could obtain licenses at a discount through “Billpoint.”
- The law firm approved a purchase order for approximately $37,290.94 and provided its corporate credit card for the purchase; Traster had set up a Billpoint seller account in his own business name and ran the credit-card charge as if the firm were buying from a vendor.
- Traster resigned shortly after and falsely suggested the licenses were secured; none were found, and Billpoint was discovered to be a payment processor rather than a software vendor.
- The law firm’s credit-card issuer reversed the charge before Traster’s Billpoint account was credited, and he never obtained the firm’s funds.
- At DK, Traster made similar “legal compliance” and discount representations and obtained checks totaling over $132,000 (to himself or designees) purportedly to buy licenses.
- Traster cashed or deposited DK’s checks but did not purchase or deliver licenses.
- Traster used documents presented as invoices, quotes, or confirmations to support the claimed purchases; they were misleading or fabricated.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported grand theft by false pretenses on each count, or instead established theft by trick based on the victims’ intent to transfer possession rather than title.
2. Whether the law firm credit-card transaction supported a completed theft offense where the charge was reversed before Traster obtained possession or control of the funds.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to one count of grand theft by trick (DK) and one count of attempted grand theft by trick (law firm).
- The court held the evidence did not support theft by false pretenses because the victims provided funds only for the limited purpose of purchasing licenses and did not intend an unconditional transfer of title.
- For DK, the offense was completed because Traster obtained and controlled the funds by cashing or depositing the checks.
- For the law firm, the offense was only an attempt because the credit-card charge was reversed before Traster received possession or control of the firm’s money.
- The judgment was affirmed as modified and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by false pretenses requires that, in reliance on a misrepresentation, the victim intends to transfer both possession and title to the defendant.
- Theft by trick applies when the victim, though deceived, intends to transfer only possession for a specific, restricted purpose while retaining title.
- Where funds are provided solely to accomplish a particular purchase, the transfer is ordinarily conditional and supports theft by trick rather than false pretenses.
- A theft-by-trick offense is not completed absent evidence the defendant obtained possession or control of the victim’s property; otherwise, liability is for attempt.
- An appellate court may modify a theft conviction to reflect the legally correct theft theory when the jury’s findings and the evidence support the modified offense and no other prejudicial error requires a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court reclassified the offenses because the victims provided money only for a limited purpose—buying software licenses—showing intent to transfer possession but not title; DK’s loss supported completed theft by trick, while the reversed credit-card charge supported only attempted theft by trick.


People v. Traster, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)