Is theft by deception the same as fraud in Pennsylvania?

It is Pennsylvania's core criminal fraud statute for obtaining property. Section 3922 covers intentionally creating or reinforcing a false impression, failing to correct one you created, or failing to disclose a known lien or legal impediment.

Can I be charged with theft by deception over a contract dispute?

It happens often, especially in home-improvement and deposit cases. The defense is that a breach of contract is not a crime: the Commonwealth has to prove you created a false impression at the time of the deal, not that the work went badly afterward.

What if I paid the money back?

Repayment does not dismiss the charge on its own, but § 3922 cases are unusually restitution-sensitive. Full repayment before disposition, combined with an ARD or diversion application, is the most common route to a non-conviction outcome.

How does exaggeration in a sales pitch fit into § 3922?

Subsection (b) excludes falsity about matters having no pecuniary significance and puffing a reasonable person would not take seriously. That exclusion is a real defense in advertising and sales-pitch prosecutions.

Criminal Defense · Theft by Deception

Theft by Deception Lawyer in Pennsylvania.

Section 3922 requires a false impression created intentionally — not a promise that turned out badly. Contractors, small-business owners, and anyone who owes money get charged under this statute when a civil dispute finds its way to a detective, and the line between the two is where the defense lives.

(717) 724-7503 Schedule a consultation

How Pennsylvania grades it

Theft by Deception (§ 3922) Defense in Pennsylvania.

Theft by deception is graded on value under § 3903: M3 under $50, M2 from $50 to under $200, M1 from $200 to under $2,000, F3 at $2,000 or more, and F1 at $500,000 or more.

Statute: 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922 (theft by deception); graded under § 3903

ARD & diversion

First-offense theft by deception is regularly ARD-eligible in Central Pennsylvania when restitution is paid, which puts an expungement at the end of the case.

Pennsylvania ARD program · ARD eligibility quiz

Theft by Deception (§ 3922) Defense: offense grading and maximum exposure under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922 (theft by deception); graded under § 3903
Offense & grading	Maximum exposure
Under $50 — M3 The lowest grading available under § 3903.	Up to 1 year jail, $2,500 fine
$50 to under $200 — M2 Often reached by disaggregating lumped-together transactions.	Up to 2 years jail, $5,000 fine
$200 to under $2,000 — M1 The common grading in deposit and small-contract cases.	Up to 5 years jail, $10,000 fine
$2,000 or more — F3 Typical in home-improvement and multi-deposit prosecutions.	Up to 7 years jail, $15,000 fine
$100,000 to under $500,000 — F2 Aggregation across complainants drives cases into this range.	Up to 10 years jail, $25,000 fine
$500,000 or more — F1 Reserved for large-scale schemes under § 3903(a.1).	Up to 20 years jail, $25,000 fine

Maximums are statutory ceilings, not expected sentences. Actual outcomes depend on prior record score, offense gravity score, and county practice.

How we defend theft by deception cases.

Draw the civil–criminal line
A broken promise is a breach of contract. Section 3922 needs a deliberately false impression at the time of the transaction. Emails, change orders, and payment records usually show good-faith performance.
Attack intent with the paper trail
Bank records showing money spent on materials, subcontractors, or partial performance directly contradict the theory that you never intended to deliver.
Fight aggregation
Prosecutors add separate transactions together to reach felony thresholds. Where the transactions are not one scheme or one course of conduct, that aggregation is improper.
Challenge reliance and materiality
Deception must be what caused the transfer. Complainants who did their own inspection, signed after full disclosure, or knew the risk undercut the element.
Use the § 3922(b) puffery exclusion
The statute expressly excludes exaggeration a reasonable person would not take literally — the difference between salesmanship and a crime.
Restitution-first resolutions
Making the complainant whole before disposition, paired with a diversion application, is the most reliable path to no conviction on a dishonesty charge.

Where we appear

Theft by Deception defense across Central Pennsylvania.

Attorney Quinlan appears in the magisterial district courts and Courts of Common Pleas in Dauphin, Cumberland, York, and Adams counties. Start with your city:

Other charges we defend.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions.

Common questions about theft by deception charges in Pennsylvania — grading, penalties, diversion, and record consequences.

It is Pennsylvania's core criminal fraud statute for obtaining property. Section 3922 covers intentionally creating or reinforcing a false impression, failing to correct one you created, or failing to disclose a known lien or legal impediment.
It happens often, especially in home-improvement and deposit cases. The defense is that a breach of contract is not a crime: the Commonwealth has to prove you created a false impression at the time of the deal, not that the work went badly afterward.
Repayment does not dismiss the charge on its own, but § 3922 cases are unusually restitution-sensitive. Full repayment before disposition, combined with an ARD or diversion application, is the most common route to a non-conviction outcome.
Subsection (b) excludes falsity about matters having no pecuniary significance and puffing a reasonable person would not take seriously. That exclusion is a real defense in advertising and sales-pitch prosecutions.

Free Consultation

The sooner we talk, the more we can do.

Every hour matters in a DUI or criminal case. Call directly and speak with Attorney Quinlan — not an intake desk.

(717) 724-7503 Schedule a consultation