Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Fraud and Statute of Limitations

The event that triggered the statute of limitations for fraud was either the commission of the fraud, ot the time when you should reasonably discovered it, whichever occurred later; and if you blew the statute, the defendant would have certainly called it to the attention of the court by now by filing a demurrer, motion to strike, or motion for summary judgment -- unless, of course, -both- of you are in pro per.

The decision on whether or not to prosecute the defendant for any criminal wrongdoing rests with the prosecutors. If the judge were to become sufficiently outraged enough, he or she could call it to their attention. A successful criminal fraud prosecution of the defendant would probably result in a slam-dunk win for you in a civil lawsuit based on the same events or transactions.

Re: Fraud and Statute of Limitations

A civil allegation of fraud does not have any bearing on when the statute of limitations in the criminal arena begins to run. If you win your civil case, that does not necessarily mean that the Respondent will face criminal charges. Nor does it guarantee that the Respondent would even be convicted of criminal charges due to the variance in the burden of proof.

Generally speaking... for a criminal offense of fraud, the statute begins to run when the fraudulent act was discovered by the victim and/or law enforcement. Generally, a misdemeanor offense has a one year statute of limitations and a felony offene has a three year statute of limitations. There are exceptions to these general rules that may apply under specified factual circumstances. You should file a report with your local law enforcement agency immediately if you intend to pursue criminal charges in addition to pursuing your civil remedies.