How Does Arizona Prosecute Fraudulent Schemes Under A.R.S. 13-2310?
Fraudulent schemes defense lawyer in Arizona can help you fight charges under state law when accused of deceptive or unlawful business practices. Derek Oliverson is a former judge, former prosecutor, and former police officer who provides calm, authoritative representation for clients facing charges under A.R.S. 13-2310, A.R.S. 13-2311, and related statutes such as A.R.S. 13-2312. He evaluates indictment elements, challenges intent and evidence, negotiates with prosecutors, and pursues dismissals or reduced charges when appropriate. If you face allegations involving schemes, artifices, fraudulent practices, or illegally conducting an enterprise, timely legal counsel can protect your rights and liberty. Contact our office immediately for an experienced review of your case, guidance through arraignment and plea options, and vigorous defense tailored to your situation. Call (480) 582-3637 for a free consultation
What Does Arizona Law Say About Fraudulent Schemes Under ARS 13-2310?
Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2310 criminalizes “schemes and artifices to defraud.” Under the statute, a person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omissions is guilty of fraudulent schemes and artifices. Fraudulent schemes under ARS 13-2310 is a class 2 felony.
Related fraud offenses are prosecuted under separate Title 13 statutes. Forgery is charged under ARS 13-2002. Identity theft is charged under ARS 13-2008, aggravated identity theft under ARS 13-2009, and trafficking in identities under ARS 13-2010. Theft by misrepresentation is prosecuted under the general theft statute, ARS 13-1802. The charging decision often determines whether the case is a class 2 felony or a less-serious charge.
Fraudulent schemes is a specific-intent crime. The State must prove the defendant knowingly engaged in deception. Mistakes, misunderstandings, and civil disputes are not criminal fraud under Arizona law. That distinction, and the complexity of the financial evidence involved, is where many fraudulent-schemes cases are reduced, dismissed, or redirected to civil court.
What Happens After a Fraudulent Schemes Indictment in Arizona?
Arizona’s criminal process moves quickly, and the decisions made in the first 48 to 72 hours after an arrest shape the rest of the case. The exact timeline depends on the charge and the court, but most Arizona cases follow the same four stages.
Arrest and Initial Appearance
If you are arrested, Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that you be brought before a judge for an Initial Appearance within 24 hours. That is when release conditions — bond, own-recognizance release, or pretrial detention — are set. Having counsel in place before the Initial Appearance can directly affect the conditions the court orders.
Arraignment and Plea Entry
Felony arraignments in Superior Court and misdemeanor arraignments in city or justice court are where the charges are formally read and a plea is entered. A not-guilty plea at arraignment preserves every defense and triggers the State’s disclosure obligations under Rule 15.
Pretrial Motions and Disclosure Review
This is the stage where most criminal cases are decided. Motions to suppress evidence, motions challenging the charging instrument, and review of police reports, body camera video, and witness statements all happen here. A successful suppression motion can end a case before trial.
Resolution: Plea, Diversion, Dismissal, or Trial
Most Arizona criminal cases resolve through a negotiated plea, a diversion program, or dismissal after a successful defense motion. When trial is the right path, Rule 8 sets time limits the State must meet. Our approach is to prepare every case as if it is going to trial, because that preparation is what produces better plea offers.
How Does Our Team Build Your Fraudulent Schemes Defense?
An effective Arizona criminal defense is built around four questions: Was the State’s evidence lawfully obtained? Can the State prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt? Are there affirmative defenses or justifications that apply? And what resolution produces the best long-term outcome for the client? Every case we take is worked through this framework.
Challenging the Stop, Search, or Seizure
Fourth Amendment issues are where many Arizona criminal cases break down. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion, searches beyond the scope of consent, and warrantless home entries without exigent circumstances all create suppression arguments under ARS 13-3925 and the Fourth Amendment.
Attacking the State’s Evidence
Chain of custody, lab testing protocols, officer credibility, body-camera gaps, and witness reliability are all challengeable. The State must prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt — breaking any single element ends the prosecution.
Raising Affirmative Defenses
Arizona recognizes self-defense under ARS 13-404, defense of a third person under ARS 13-406, defense of premises and property, necessity, duress, and mistake of fact. When the facts support it, we raise these defenses early and present them to the jury.
Negotiating From Trial-Ready Strength
Our preferred resolution is always dismissal or diversion. When a plea is the right outcome, we negotiate from the leverage created by trial preparation. Prosecutors move their offers when they see a defense that is ready to go.
Why Does Our Background Give You an Advantage?
Oliverson Law was founded in 2009 by Derek Oliverson, who brings a career spanning law enforcement, prosecution, and the judiciary. He earned his B.S. in Criminal Justice (magna cum laude) from Southern Utah University and his J.D. with a concentration in litigation from Creighton University School of Law. He was admitted to the Arizona Bar in October 2009.
Before founding the firm, Derek served as a police officer in Henderson, Nevada, worked as a criminal prosecutor in Mohave County, Arizona, and presided as a judge at both Page Magistrate Court (overseeing adjudication of 3,000+ cases annually) and Glendale City Court (starting in 2012, overseeing 40,000+ cases annually). He left the bench in 2014 to focus on criminal defense.
Attorney David Tangren is a graduate of the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law where he served as Note and Comment Editor on the International and Comparative Law Journal. Before joining Oliverson Law, David was a prosecutor at the Pima County Attorney’s Office, handling cases from misdemeanors through the felony trial team in the Property and Narcotics Bureau.
Which Arizona Counties and Cities Do We Serve?
Oliverson Law handles fraudulent schemes cases throughout Arizona from our main office at 60 E Rio Salado Pkwy, Suite 900, Tempe, AZ 85281. We appear regularly in Superior Court across Maricopa County and Mohave County.
Maricopa County (Population: 4,551,524)
Maricopa County Superior Court at 201 W Jefferson St, Phoenix handles all felony cases. Misdemeanor cases are heard in the 26 justice court precincts and municipal courts located throughout the county, including regional facilities in Mesa (222 E Javelina Ave), Surprise (14264 W Tierra Buena Ln), and North Phoenix (18380 N 40th St).
Mohave County (Population: 222,255)
Mohave County Superior Court at 415 E Spring St in Kingman handles felony cases. Our founder Derek Oliverson began his legal career as a prosecutor in Mohave County and maintains direct familiarity with the local courts and procedures.
Maricopa CountyPima CountyPinal CountyYavapai CountyMohave CountyCoconino CountyYuma CountyCochise County
Frequently Asked Questions
Under ARS 13-2310, a person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omissions is guilty of fraudulent schemes and artifices. It is a class 2 felony.
ARS 13-2310 (fraudulent schemes) is the broadest Arizona fraud statute. Forgery under ARS 13-2002, identity theft under ARS 13-2008, aggravated identity theft under ARS 13-2009, and trafficking in identities under ARS 13-2010 are separate offenses with their own elements. The charging decision is often a key leverage point in defense.
Yes. ARS 13-2310 is a class 2 felony. A fraudulent schemes defense lawyer will often seek reduction to a less-serious fraud offense, a theft-by-misrepresentation charge under ARS 13-1802, or civil resolution where the facts support it.
Sometimes, yes. Arizona prosecutors do dismiss or reduce fraud cases where the defense can show the dispute is properly civil — a business disagreement, contract dispute, or good-faith misunderstanding — rather than criminal fraud requiring proof of knowing deception.
Generally, yes. Arizona professional licensing boards — medical, legal, real estate, financial services, nursing, contractor — review fraud convictions as part of licensing and discipline decisions. A fraudulent schemes lawyer coordinates with licensing-defense counsel to protect both the criminal record and the professional license.
Oliverson Law’s team includes a former judge (Glendale City Court), former prosecutors (Mohave County and Pima County), and a former police officer. That combined experience on the charging, prosecuting, and judicial sides of Arizona criminal cases is what informs our defense strategy. We have been defending Arizona criminal charges since the firm was founded in 2009.
Arizona DUI Defense1st Offense DUIExtreme DUIAggravated DUIDUI License ConsequencesIgnition Interlock
Arizona DUI Laws & PenaltiesHow Long Does a DUI Case Take?How Much Does a DUI Lawyer Cost?First Offense DUI PenaltiesIs a DUI a Felony in Arizona?About Derek OliversonCase Results
Derek Oliverson has presided over thousands of cases from the bench, prosecuted criminal cases in Mohave County, and patrolled streets as a police officer. Now he uses that experience to defend you.
Call (480) 582-3637Or request a free consultation online