800-270-8184
Roseville Telemarketing Fraud Criminal Defense Lawyers
Roseville California Telemarketing Fraud Charges
- 24 hour service
- Over 50 years of combined defense experience
- Affordable rates and payment plans
- Call us 800-270-8184 / email info@wiselaws.com
At Wise Laws, our Roseville lawyers multiply an energetic defense for individuals and businesses charged with Roseville CA telemarketing fraud. Wise Laws represent clients from around the country. If you have been accused of operating fraudulent schemes using telephones, it is important to have experienced legal representation.
You will find that our attorneys are experienced, creative and dedicated to resolving your legal problem. Roseville CA Conviction of telemarketing fraud can carry major penalties. It is important to have a seasoned defense team when fighting Roseville California telemarketing fraud charges.
Some Roseville California Telemarketing Fraud Charges include:
-
Roseville California Charity schemes
-
Roseville Prize promotion giveaways
-
Roseville Public official impersonation
-
Asking for advanced payment without sending goods
-
Selling names of people whom have been defrauded
-
Roseville Magazine schemes
-
Roseville Office equipment schemes
-
Roseville California Lottery ticket schemes
-
Roseville Tax payment schemes
-
Roseville Vending machine fraud
-
Roseville Loan schemes
-
Roseville Jury service fraud schemes
In general, Roseville California telemarketing schemes involve promising something of value over the telephone and the victim has made not delivering it after payment. Such charges can also involve obtaining credit card information by telephone and then making use of the victim’s credit. If you have been accused of operating a Roseville CA telemarketing scheme along these lines, it is in your best interests to seek legal counsel right away.
If you are facing any telemarketing fraud charges in Roseville, you can be assured that Wise Laws will help in defending you effectively, working to recognize weaknesses in the prosecution’s case that lead to reasonable doubt among members of the jury.
