California Penal Code §155 — Fraudulent Transfer
PC §155 makes it a misdemeanor for a person in possession of property to fraudulently sell, convey, or encumber the property after learning that a warrant of attachment or execution has been issued. Convictions carry up to 1 year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Fraudulent Transfer Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §155 — Fraudulent Transfer at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §155 — Fraudulent Transfer by Debtor in Possession |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Jail Term | Up to 1 year county jail |
| Fine | Up to $1,000 |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Available (up to 3 years summary) |
| Expungeable | Yes — PC §1203.4 |
| Immigration | Potential CIMT — case-specific analysis required |
| Related Codes | PC §154 (fraudulent conveyance), PC §532 (theft by false pretenses), PC §487 (grand theft) |
| If Charged | Call (213) 723-2337 immediately |
01 — What Is PC §155?
What Is California Penal Code §155?
PC §155 Reads:
"Every person who, being in possession of any property, real or personal, or of any interest therein, and knowing that a warrant of attachment or execution has been issued for the seizure of the same, or any part thereof, sells, assigns, conveys, or otherwise disposes of the same, or any part thereof, or encumbers the same, or any part thereof, or in any manner delays, hinders, or defrauds the officer charged with the execution of the warrant, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both."
— California Penal Code §155
California Penal Code §155 criminalizes fraudulent transfers by debtors who know that an attachment or execution warrant has been issued against their property. Unlike §154 — which applies to persons against whom an action is pending or judgment rendered — §155 applies to anyone in possession of property who learns that a seizure warrant has been issued and who then disposes of, encumbers, or hinders enforcement of that warrant. The statute protects the integrity of civil judgment enforcement by criminalizing post-warrant asset dissipation.
Attachment vs. Execution Warrants
An attachment warrant (Code of Civil Procedure §484.010) allows a creditor to seize property before judgment to secure a potential recovery. An execution warrant (Code of Civil Procedure §699.010) allows seizure after judgment to satisfy the debt. §155 applies to both — the critical element is that the defendant KNEW the warrant had been issued.
Why This Law Matters
§155 ensures that civil judgment creditors can actually collect what the court has awarded them. When debtors dissipate assets after learning of a seizure warrant, court orders become meaningless. Los Angeles County prosecutors typically file §155 in tandem with §154 in white-collar fraud, business disputes, and family-law support-enforcement cases. At Rubin Law, P.C., we defend by showing the defendant did not know about the warrant, lacked intent to defraud, or made a legitimate transfer before the warrant issued.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §155
To convict a defendant of fraudulent transfer under PC §155, the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
You Were in Possession of Property or an Interest Therein
The defendant must have been in possession of real or personal property, or held a legal interest in such property, at the time of the alleged transfer. The prosecution must trace possession to the defendant.
You Knew a Warrant of Attachment or Execution Had Been Issued
Knowledge of the warrant is a required element. The prosecution must prove actual or constructive knowledge that a seizure warrant had been issued. If the defendant was unaware of the warrant — because it was not served, not public record, or hidden from them — this element fails.
You Sold, Conveyed, Encumbered, or Hindered Execution of the Warrant
The prosecution must prove an affirmative act of disposition, encumbrance, or obstruction. Mere failure to cooperate, financial hardship, or insolvency does not satisfy this element. The defendant must have taken active steps to defeat the warrant.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §155 Fraudulent Transfer in California
PC §155 is a straight misdemeanor with the following sentencing exposure.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misdemeanor §155 | PC §155 | Up to 1 year county jail | Summary (up to 3 years) | No |
Additional Consequences Beyond Prison
- Restitution to the victim creditor for the value of fraudulently transferred or encumbered assets
- Civil contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of court orders
- Professional license discipline for attorneys, accountants, and financial professionals
- Immigration consequences if deemed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT)
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §155 Fraudulent Transfer Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. defends §155 charges by attacking knowledge, intent, and the existence of an affirmative fraudulent act.
No Knowledge of the Warrant
If the defendant did not know — and had no reason to know — that an attachment or execution warrant had been issued, §155 fails. We subpoena service records, court dockets, and mailing logs to prove lack of notice.
Knowledge element
No Intent to Defraud
The prosecution must prove specific intent to delay, hinder, or defraud the officer executing the warrant. Legitimate business transactions, payment of other creditors, and good-faith financial decisions do not satisfy the mens rea requirement.
Mens rea
No Affirmative Act of Disposition
§155 requires an affirmative sale, conveyance, encumbrance, or obstruction. Passive insolvency, failure to respond to creditor demands, or ordinary business expenses are not §155 violations.
No affirmative act
Transfer Preceded the Warrant
If the transfer occurred before the attachment or execution warrant issued, §155 does not apply. We use financial records and court dockets to establish precise chronology.
Timeline defense
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §155 Fraudulent Transfer Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
§155 cases proceed through the following stages.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation
Creditor or levying officer reports suspected post-warrant transfer. Law enforcement reviews court records, bank statements, property deeds, and business filings.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing / Arraignment
Filed as a misdemeanor. Arraignment within 48 hours. Bail or O.R. release.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery
Court dockets, warrant records, service logs, financial records, bank statements, property deeds, and creditor communications.
- 4
Step 4 — Pretrial Motions
PC §995 (insufficient evidence), PC §1538.5 ( Fourth Amendment challenges), and restitution hearings.
- 5
Step 5 — Trial
Typically 2–4 court days. Prosecution must prove knowledge of the warrant and intent to defraud. Financial and forensic experts frequently testify.
- 6
Step 6 — Sentencing
Summary probation, jail time, fines, and restitution. Restitution often requires detailed asset-tracing and may exceed the criminal penalty.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §155 Fraudulent Transfer Cases
§155 filings occur in the courthouse serving the jurisdiction where the warrant issued or where the fraudulent transfer took place.
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
Central LA — white-collar fraud and complex financial cases.
Van Nuys Courthouse East
San Fernando Valley financial crime cases.
Airport Courthouse
West LA white-collar cases.
Long Beach Courthouse
South Bay financial crime cases.
Pasadena Courthouse
Pasadena / San Gabriel Valley cases.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Fraudulent Transfer Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with fraudulent transfer and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §155 in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Fraudulent Transfer Cases Throughout LA County
09 — FAQs
PC §155 Fraudulent Transfer Questions — Los Angeles
What is the penalty for fraudulent transfer under PC §155?
PC §155 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. The court may also order restitution to the victim creditor.
What's the difference between PC §155 and PC §154?
§155 applies to any person in possession of property who knows an attachment or execution warrant has been issued and who then disposes of or encumbers the property. §154 applies specifically to judgment debtors against whom an action is pending or a judgment has been rendered. Both are misdemeanors with the same penalties.
Can I be charged with §155 if I didn't know about the warrant?
No. Knowledge of the warrant is a required element of §155. If you were unaware that an attachment or execution warrant had been issued, the prosecution cannot convict you under this statute.
Is §155 a felony?
No. PC §155 is a straight misdemeanor. However, companion charges such as grand theft (PC §487) or conspiracy (PC §182) may be filed as felonies depending on the circumstances.
Can §155 be expunged?
Yes. Misdemeanor §155 is eligible for PC §1203.4 expungement after successful completion of probation.
What if I sold the property before the warrant issued?
If the sale, transfer, or encumbrance occurred before the warrant issued, §155 does not apply. The statute criminalizes acts taken after learning of the warrant, not pre-warrant transactions.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Fraudulent Transfer Under PC §155?
§155 allegations can expose you to jail time and crushing restitution. Rubin Law, P.C. defends with knowledge, timeline, and intent arguments. Call (213) 723-2337.