A Split Supreme Court Reverses an en banc Opinion from the Court of Appeals Concerning the Virginia Computer Crimes Act
Commonwealth v. Wallace, Record No. 240138 (Va. Nov. 21, 2024) (order)
The Supreme Court reversed the en banc judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Wallace v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 455, 476-84 (2024) (en banc). That case addressed whether Taylor Wallace’s use of an ATM to deposit forged checks constituted “computer fraud” under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA). Specifically, it considered whether Wallace used the ATM “without authority.” Under the VCCA, a person is “without authority” when she “knows or reasonably should know that [s]he has no right, agreement, or permission or acts in a manner knowingly exceeding such right, agreement, or permission.” As a banking customer, Wallace had permission to use the ATM, so the question was whether Wallace, by using the computer, acted in a manner that exceeded her permission. Here, because Wallace did not have the bank’s permission to use its ATM to cash forged checks, she used it “without authority” in violation of the VCCA.
Chief Justice Goodwyn and Justices McCullough and Russell dissented for the reasons stated in the en banc majority opinion of Wallace, 79 Va. App. at 458-73. The en banc majority found that simply using a computer for an unlawful purpose does not automatically render that use “without authority” under the statute. It is a person’s use, not their purpose, that must be “without authority” to commit computer fraud under the VCCA. Here, as a banking customer, Wallace had permission to use the ATM even though she used it for a fraudulent purpose, therefore her use was not without authority.