False pretenses and fraud defense in Detroit and Wayne County. Dispute intent to defraud, challenge valuation, and address documentary and electronic evidence.

False pretenses cases are usually document-heavy and can involve contested narratives about business practices, disputes over performance, or misunderstandings rather than criminal intent. The prosecution must still prove a fraudulent scheme and an intent to defraud, not mere breach of contract.

Value and loss calculations are frequently contested in these matters. Defense counsel should examine whether the alleged “loss” is supported by records, whether offsets apply, and whether the state is improperly treating civil damages as criminal value for charging purposes.

Electronic evidence can drive the case, including emails, texts, bank records, and platform logs. A careful defense review tests authentication, context, and whether the communications actually show false representations made to obtain property.

Because reputational harm can be immediate, early strategy matters. Strong pretrial motion practice, disciplined negotiation, and accurate mitigation materials can reduce charges, control restitution terms, and protect professional and business interests.

False Pretenses, Intent to Defraud, and Record Evidence

False pretenses cases are often charged when the prosecution alleges that a person obtained money or property through a material misrepresentation. Michigan’s statute focuses on an intent to defraud or cheat and the use of a false pretense to obtain, attempt to obtain, or cause a transfer of property. See MCL 750.218. Because these cases can overlap with ordinary business disputes, the principal litigation question is whether the evidence proves criminal intent, or whether the dispute is better characterized as a civil disagreement, contract nonperformance, or misunderstanding.

A rigorous defense begins with the records. Emails, texts, invoices, bank deposits, and platform logs can clarify what was represented, when it was represented, and how the alleged victim understood the transaction. Authentication and context matter. A single message can look incriminating in isolation but become neutral or exculpatory when viewed against the full thread, the surrounding negotiations, and the parties’ course of dealing.

Value and loss calculations are also frequently contested. The prosecution’s “value” theory may conflate civil damages with criminal value, omit offsets, or ignore partial performance. Where the transaction involved services, staged deliveries, or refunds, the defense should insist on an accurate accounting before accepting charging or restitution assumptions.

Finally, procedure can decide the case. Search warrants for phones, accounts, or business records must be supported by probable cause and executed within scope. Interviews and statements must comply with constitutional requirements. Effective motion practice can limit or exclude improperly obtained evidence and narrow the state’s theory. Where resolution is appropriate, counsel should structure outcomes to minimize collateral consequences, control restitution terms, and protect the client’s professional and business reputation, which is often as important as the courtroom result.

Why Choose William Maze As Your Criminal Defense Attorney?

As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.

Local Expertise:

• Knowledge of Detroit judges' preferences
• Experience with Detroit prosecutors
• Understanding of local court procedures
• Relationships with court personnel

Attorney Credentials:

• 28+ years Detroit experience
• Expert witness qualified
• Former CDAM President
• SFST certified instructor

William J. Maze, Esq.

Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney

Expert Witness 28+ Years