Payment PlansCharged with Theft from an Elder or Financial Elder Abuse in California?
The Victim's Age Transforms What Would Be an Ordinary Theft Case into an Enhanced Felony Prosecution — with Mandatory Consecutive Prison Time That Stacks on Top of the Base Sentence.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended theft from elder and financial elder abuse charges under Penal Code § 368 (elder and dependent adult abuse, including financial theft) in criminal courts across every county in California — from Los Angeles to San Francisco, San Diego to Sacramento, and everywhere in between. When the alleged victim is 65 or older, every theft offense — petty theft, grand theft, embezzlement, fraud, identity theft — carries enhanced penalties that can add years of mandatory consecutive prison time to the base sentence. The enhancement is serious. So are the defenses. Build your case now.
IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH OR UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THEFT FROM AN ELDER OR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE:
- Do not make any statements to law enforcement, Adult Protective Services investigators, or prosecutors without experienced defense counsel present — in elder theft and financial elder abuse cases, early statements about your relationship with the alleged victim, your access to their finances, or your knowledge of their age are used to establish the elements the prosecution needs to prove
- Do not transfer, spend, or dispose of any assets connected to the alleged victim — asset movement after an investigation begins is used as evidence of consciousness of guilt and can trigger civil asset freeze orders
- Preserve all documentation — any evidence of authorization, consent, legitimate transactions, the elder's capacity, the nature of your relationship, receipts, communications, financial records, and any written or verbal permission for the conduct at issue
- Contact experienced defense counsel immediately — elder theft and financial elder abuse investigations frequently proceed on criminal and civil tracks simultaneously, and early intervention can influence charging decisions before the most serious enhancements are locked in
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE STAKES ARE REAL — THE VICTIM'S AGE CHANGES EVERYTHING
In California criminal law, the age of the alleged victim is not merely a background fact — it is a statutory aggravating factor that transforms the entire character of a theft or fraud prosecution. The same conduct that would produce a misdemeanor or standard felony result when the alleged victim is under 65 becomes a PC § 368 enhanced prosecution when the alleged victim is 65 or older. That enhancement adds mandatory consecutive prison time based on the amount involved, restricts judicial sentencing discretion, and triggers parallel civil remedies that run independently of the criminal case — creating a legal exposure that is qualitatively different from what the underlying theft offense alone would produce.
What makes theft from an elder and financial elder abuse cases uniquely complex is the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim. Unlike most theft prosecutions — which involve strangers — these cases most frequently involve family members, caregivers, trusted friends, financial advisors, and others who had existing relationships with the elder and legitimate access to the elder's finances. The allegation frequently emerges not from a deliberate scheme by a stranger but from a disputed transaction, a contested gift, a misunderstood financial arrangement, or a family conflict about how an elder's money was managed. The prosecution's narrative — that the defendant exploited a vulnerable elder — is frequently at odds with the defendant's actual relationship with the elder and the actual context of the financial transactions at issue.
That context matters enormously to the defense. The intent element, the authorization question, the elder's mental capacity at the time of the transactions, and the specific circumstances that produced the allegation are all factual and legal questions that are genuinely contested in most elder theft and financial elder abuse cases — and contested successfully. A defendant with a prior relationship with the elder, documentary evidence of authorization or consent, and a legitimate explanation for the financial transactions faces a very different prosecution than the exploitation-of-a-stranger case the charge implies — and that difference is what the defense is built on.
A PC § 368 theft from elder or financial elder abuse conviction in California can mean:
California PC § 368 Elder Theft and Financial Elder Abuse Charges at a Glance:
| Classification | Value Threshold | Potential Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Misdemeanor | ≤ $950 | Up to 1 year county jail + fines |
| Felony (non-caretaker) | > $950 | 2, 3, or 4 years state prison + fines |
| Felony (caretaker) | > $950 | Same base — often charged more aggressively under PC § 368(e) |
Mandatory Sentencing Enhancements — Consecutive and Stacking:
| Amount Taken | Mandatory Consecutive Addition |
|---|---|
| Over $65,000 | +1 year mandatory consecutive |
| Over $200,000 | +2 years mandatory consecutive |
| Over $1,300,000 | +3 years mandatory consecutive |
| Over $3,200,000 | +4 years mandatory consecutive |
| Victim age 70 or older | +1 additional year mandatory consecutive |
These enhancements stack — a defendant convicted of elder theft or financial elder abuse involving $250,000 from a victim aged 72 faces the base 2–4 year sentence plus 2 consecutive years for the amount plus 1 consecutive year for the victim's age — a total of 5 to 7 years before any other factors apply. None of that mandatory consecutive time can be avoided through judicial discretion, probation, or suspended sentence. This stacking structure makes the prosecution's calculation of the amount taken one of the most critical contested issues in every PC § 368 case.
Additional consequences of a PC § 368 conviction:
- Parallel civil liability under WIC § 15657.5 — economic damages, punitive damages up to three times actual damages, and attorney fees recoverable in a civil action running entirely independently of the criminal case
- Asset freeze orders — civil courts can freeze the defendant's assets before conviction and in some circumstances before criminal charges are formally filed
- Mandatory restitution — full restitution to the victim ordered as part of every elder theft criminal sentence
- Permanent criminal record — felony conviction appears on every background check; firearm rights lost permanently upon any felony conviction
- Professional license consequences — mandatory reporting and potential discipline or revocation for financial advisors, attorneys, CPAs, healthcare providers, caregivers, real estate professionals, and other licensed professionals
- Immigration consequences — theft and fraud offenses are crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law; felony designation amplifies deportation and removal risk for non-U.S. citizens
- Conservatorship and probate consequences — a conviction is used in civil and probate proceedings to remove trustees, invalidate powers of attorney, contest wills, and modify estate plans
Call now for a free consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
WHAT IS THEFT FROM AN ELDER OR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW?
PC § 368 — The Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Enhancement
Penal Code § 368 is California's primary criminal statute for offenses against elders and dependent adults. It does not create a new category of theft — it takes existing theft offenses and dramatically enhances their penalties when the alleged victim is 65 or older (an elder) or between 18 and 64 with physical or mental limitations that restrict their ability to carry out normal activities (a dependent adult).
The Specific Subsections:
PC § 368(d) — Theft Against an Elder or Dependent Adult
Applies when a non-caretaker defendant commits theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft against an elder or dependent adult — knowing or having reason to know the victim's status. A wobbler — charged as misdemeanor or felony based on value. For amounts exceeding the misdemeanor threshold, the felony carries 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison plus mandatory consecutive enhancements based on the amount taken.
PC § 368(e) — Theft by a Caretaker
Applies specifically when the defendant is a caretaker of the elder or dependent adult — any person who has the care, custody, or control of an elder or dependent adult, or who stands in a position of trust with respect to that person. Caretaker status triggers more aggressive charging and enhanced prosecutorial attention. Not every relationship qualifies for enhanced charging under PC § 368(e) — the definition is broad but not unlimited, and the caretaker designation is contested in every case where it is legally questionable on the specific facts.
PC § 368(f) — Misdemeanor Elder Theft
Applies to lesser financial exploitation not rising to the felony subsections — up to 1 year in county jail. Often the result of plea negotiations that successfully reduce the felony exposure.
What the Prosecution Must Prove:
For a PC § 368 conviction, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The alleged victim was an elder (65 or older) or dependent adult at the time of the offense
- The defendant committed the underlying theft offense — theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft
- The defendant knew or reasonably should have known the alleged victim was an elder or dependent adult
- The defendant acted with the required wrongful intent — the specific criminal intent required by the underlying theft offense
The Intent Element — The Most Important and Most Vulnerable Defense Target
Every PC § 368 prosecution requires proof of specific criminal intent — and intent is the element most frequently vulnerable to challenge. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to steal, intended to defraud, or intended to embezzle — not that the defendant managed finances in a way that family members later disputed, not that gifts were given that heirs later contested, and not that financial decisions were made that others characterized as self-dealing after the fact. A defendant who had authorization, who acted in good faith, who received voluntary gifts from a capacitated elder, or who was engaged in a legitimate financial arrangement with the elder's knowledge and consent did not act with the required criminal intent.
The Underlying Offense Must Be Proven Independently
The elder status enhancement does not relax the prosecution's burden on the underlying theft offense. Every element of the underlying theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — and those elements are subject to the same challenges available in any theft or fraud prosecution. A successful defense of the underlying offense eliminates the PC § 368 enhancement entirely.
The Amount — The Threshold That Determines the Enhancement
How the amount allegedly taken is calculated, what property is properly included, and whether the prosecution's methodology is legally correct are all examined and challenged through forensic accounting analysis in every case where enhancements are alleged — because the difference between amounts that do and do not cross specific thresholds can mean years of additional mandatory consecutive prison time.
Common Scenarios in Which PC § 368 Charges Are Filed: Family members who managed finances for aging parents and made transactions that siblings later disputed, caregivers who received gifts or compensation or were named in amended estate documents, individuals who used a power of attorney in ways that family members later challenged, financial advisors whose fees or transactions were contested, trustees and executors whose management of estate assets was disputed by beneficiaries, and individuals who engaged in joint financial arrangements with elders that were mischaracterized as theft after the relationship ended or the elder died.
HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS THEFT FROM AN ELDER AND FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE CASES
PC § 368 defense requires attacking the underlying offense, the enhancement, and the prosecution's amount calculation simultaneously — while managing parallel civil proceedings, protecting assets from freeze orders, and ensuring that positions taken in one proceeding do not create additional exposure in another. It requires an attorney who understands the specific elements of PC § 368, the authorization and capacity defenses unique to elder theft cases, the forensic accounting methodology needed to challenge enhancement calculations, and the full range of collateral consequences — civil, probate, professional, and immigration — that make these cases so much more complex than ordinary theft prosecutions.
David Chesley handles theft from an elder and financial elder abuse defense in criminal courts across every major region of California — Southern California, Northern California, and Central California — and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He personally handles every case from first consultation to final resolution. No hand-offs. No junior associates. The attorney you hire is the attorney fighting for you.
Every defense begins with the right questions and immediate action:
Was there authorization — and is the documentation complete and preserved?
Authorization by the elder is a complete defense to the underlying theft charge — and if the underlying offense cannot be proven, the PC § 368 enhancement is eliminated entirely. All documentation of authorization is identified, preserved, and organized from the first day of representation: powers of attorney, trust instruments, written authorizations, bank records showing the elder's direct participation in transactions, and communications reflecting the elder's expressed consent. Where documentation is strong and the elder's capacity is established, the authorization defense defeats the prosecution's wrongful taking theory at its foundation.
Did the elder have mental capacity at the time of the transactions?
The elder's cognitive ability to authorize transactions, make gifts, and engage in financial arrangements at the relevant time is analyzed through all available medical records, treating physician records, and cognitive assessment records contemporaneous with the transactions. Where the prosecution alleges the elder lacked capacity — making any purported authorization invalid — independent neuropsychological expert testimony is pursued to contest that theory. Capacity can fluctuate over time even with a dementia diagnosis, and the prosecution's incapacity allegation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is the prosecution's amount calculation accurate — and does it trigger the enhancements alleged?
Forensic accounting analysis of the prosecution's methodology is pursued immediately — examining what property is properly included, how values are calculated, and whether the prosecution's total accurately reflects what was actually taken versus what was legitimately managed, compensated, or received as a gift. A reduction below a specific threshold eliminates the mandatory consecutive enhancement years associated with that threshold.
Is the caretaker designation legally applicable on these facts?
Not every relationship qualifies for enhanced charging under PC § 368(e). The specific nature of the relationship, the extent of the defendant's responsibilities, and whether the relationship fits the statutory definition are all examined in every case where the caretaker designation is alleged — because that designation triggers more aggressive charging and its inapplicability must be established from the first day of representation.
Can the charge be negotiated to lesser treatment?
PC § 368 is a wobbler — and misdemeanor treatment eliminates the mandatory consecutive enhancements, avoids state prison, and dramatically reduces every collateral consequence of the conviction. Negotiating to misdemeanor treatment or to a lesser underlying offense that does not trigger the elder abuse enhancement is pursued aggressively in every case where the facts and the defendant's history support it.
Are there parallel civil proceedings that must be managed simultaneously?
Civil asset freeze orders, civil lawsuits under WIC § 15657.5, and conservatorship proceedings are addressed simultaneously with the criminal defense — challenging overbroad freeze orders, protecting legitimate assets, and ensuring that civil proceedings do not prejudice the criminal defense through premature disclosure or adverse legal findings.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.
The prosecution must prove every element of the underlying theft offense and every element of the PC § 368 enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim's age does not lower that standard. The emotional weight of the charge does not lower that standard. Many theft from elder and financial elder abuse cases resolve with outcomes significantly better than defendants initially face:
- Underlying theft charges dismissed — authorization established, intent element not proven, or evidence insufficient; PC § 368 enhancement eliminated with the predicate offense
- Felony reduced to misdemeanor — wobbler treatment pursued through prosecution negotiation or court discretion; mandatory consecutive enhancements eliminated; state prison avoided
- Enhancement amounts successfully challenged — forensic accounting reduces prosecution's calculation below specific threshold; mandatory consecutive years eliminated
- Caretaker designation successfully challenged — PC § 368(e) enhanced treatment not applicable on specific facts; standard rather than caretaker-enhanced prosecution
- Authorization defense established — documentation of power of attorney, written consent, or the elder's express authorization defeats wrongful taking theory
- Capacity defense established — medical records demonstrate elder had full capacity at time of transactions; authorization validated; incapacity theory defeated
- Civil asset freeze challenged and modified — overbroad order lifted; legitimate assets restored
- Immigration-safe resolution — charge resolved without theft or fraud conviction constituting crime of moral turpitude
- Professional license consequences minimized — resolution structured to avoid or reduce mandatory reporting obligations
WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles theft from elder and financial elder abuse cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because PC § 368 cases frequently involve pre-charge civil asset freezes and APS investigations that begin before criminal charges are filed, and early intervention is critical. You get the attorney, not support staff.
Straight talk, always
These cases range from situations where authorization is clearly documented and the prosecution's case is legally defective, to more complex situations involving disputed capacity, contested amounts, and caretaker enhancement exposure that requires detailed forensic analysis. You deserve honest counsel about exactly which situation you are in, what the prosecution's evidence actually establishes, and what the most effective strategy looks like given the specific facts and the specific court. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
Full consequence analysis — criminal, civil, probate, professional, and immigration
The criminal charge is only part of what a PC § 368 case can cost. The parallel civil liability, the conservatorship proceedings, the professional license exposure, and the immigration consequences are all analyzed from the very first consultation — because the resolution strategy must account for every track simultaneously.
California-wide expertise in elder theft and financial elder abuse defense
Deep knowledge of PC § 368 and its complete enhancement structure, the authorization and capacity defenses unique to these cases, forensic accounting methodology for challenging amount calculations, WIC § 15657.5 civil liability, APS investigation procedures, caretaker designation challenges, probate and trust law as it intersects with criminal elder abuse prosecutions, and the immigration and professional license consequences of elder theft convictions — across every region of California, Southern, Northern, and Central.
Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing an elder theft or financial elder abuse charge goes without experienced legal representation across every front that matters.
Representative Results:
- Theft from elder charges dismissed — power of attorney and written communications established full authorization for all challenged transactions; wrongful intent not proven beyond a reasonable doubt
- Felony reduced to misdemeanor — prosecution's amount calculation challenged through forensic accounting; revised total fell below felony enhancement threshold; state prison avoided
- Mandatory enhancements eliminated — forensic accounting showed amounts properly attributable to legitimate compensation and gifts rather than theft; revised total fell below consecutive enhancement threshold; years of mandatory prison time removed
- Caretaker designation successfully challenged — defendant's relationship with elder not within statutory definition of caretaker under PC § 368(e); standard felony treatment rather than caretaker-enhanced prosecution
- Capacity established — medical records from treating physicians contemporaneous with challenged transactions demonstrated full cognitive capacity; authorization validated; prosecution's incapacity theory not sustained
- Civil asset freeze successfully challenged — overbroad order modified; defendant's access to personal assets not connected to alleged victim restored
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant's charge resolved without theft conviction constituting crime of moral turpitude; deportation exposure avoided
- Professional license consequences avoided — licensed healthcare provider's case resolved through negotiation avoiding mandatory board reporting trigger
Client Feedback:
"I was a caregiver and received gifts from the person I cared for over several years. After she passed, her children reported me. David established that she had full capacity when she gave the gifts and that I had done nothing wrong. Charges dismissed." — Anonymous former client
"My siblings accused me of stealing from my father while I managed his finances under a power of attorney. Every transaction was legitimate. David proved it. Case dismissed." — Anonymous former client
"Facing mandatory prison time because of the dollar amount involved. David's forensic accounting showed the prosecution's calculation included money I was legitimately paid as compensation. The enhancement was eliminated and I avoided state prison." — Anonymous former client
"Non-citizen facing deportation on top of everything else. David built the defense around protecting my immigration status from the very first consultation. Resolved safely." — Anonymous former client
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the difference between theft from an elder and financial elder abuse — and are they the same charge?
In California practice, "theft from an elder" and "financial elder abuse" both refer primarily to prosecutions under Penal Code § 368 — the elder and dependent adult abuse statute — when the alleged conduct involves theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, or identity theft against a victim who is 65 or older or a dependent adult. The terms are used interchangeably in practice, though "financial elder abuse" is also the term used in civil proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30. The criminal charges, the defenses, and the consequences are the same regardless of which label is used — and a single incident can produce both a criminal PC § 368 prosecution and a parallel civil WIC § 15657.5 action running simultaneously.
What is the authorization defense — and does it eliminate the charge entirely?
Yes — authorization by the elder is a complete defense to the underlying theft charge. A defendant who had valid authorization — a power of attorney, a trust instrument, written or oral consent from a mentally capacitated elder — did not take the elder's property for a wrongful purpose. The prosecution's wrongful taking theory cannot be established when the defendant acted pursuant to legitimate authorization. The strength of the defense depends on the quality of the documentation, the elder's mental capacity at the time the authorization was given, and whether the specific transactions fell within the scope of the authorization. Where documentation is strong and capacity is established, the authorization defense is a complete answer to the charge — not merely mitigation.
Is a gift from an elder automatically theft or financial elder abuse?
No. A voluntary gift from a mentally capacitated elder to a caregiver, family member, or trusted person is not theft — it is a legitimate transfer of property made by an elder exercising their own free will. The recipient of a voluntary gift from a capacitated elder has not committed elder theft or financial elder abuse regardless of what the family alleges after the fact. The critical questions are whether the elder had mental capacity at the time of the gift and whether the gift was made freely without undue influence or coercion. Where capacity and free choice are established through medical records, communications, and witness accounts of the elder's functioning, the gift is legally valid and the criminal allegation based on it is defeated.
How does the elder's mental capacity matter — and what if the elder had dementia?
Capacity is time-specific and decision-specific — and this is the most important thing to understand about the capacity question in elder theft defense. An elder's dementia diagnosis does not automatically invalidate prior actions, prior authorizations, or prior gifts. Capacity can fluctuate significantly over time even with a progressive dementia diagnosis — an elder may have full capacity on some days and not others, may have capacity for some decisions and not others, and may have been fully capable at the time of the challenged transactions even if their capacity later declined. The prosecution's incapacity allegation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — it cannot be assumed from a diagnosis alone, from the elder's later-stage condition, or from the fact that cognitive abilities declined after the transactions at issue. The relevant question is the elder's actual capacity at the specific time of each challenged transaction — answered through the contemporaneous medical record, treating physician observations from that period, cognitive assessments taken at the relevant time, and independent neuropsychological expert testimony where the capacity question is genuinely contested.
What are the mandatory sentencing enhancements — and how do they stack?
PC § 368's enhancement structure adds mandatory consecutive prison time based on the amount taken — and these enhancements stack with each other and with the base sentence in ways that dramatically increase total exposure. The specific thresholds: over $65,000 adds 1 mandatory consecutive year; over $200,000 adds 2 mandatory consecutive years; over $1,300,000 adds 3 mandatory consecutive years; over $3,200,000 adds 4 mandatory consecutive years. An additional mandatory consecutive year is added if the victim was 70 or older. As a concrete illustration: a defendant convicted of elder theft involving $250,000 from a victim aged 72 faces the base 2–4 year sentence plus 2 consecutive years for the amount plus 1 consecutive year for the victim's age — a total of 5 to 7 years before any other factors apply. None of that mandatory consecutive time can be avoided through judicial discretion, probation, or suspended sentence. The prosecution's calculation of the amount taken is therefore one of the most critical and most frequently contested issues in every PC § 368 case.
Does caretaker status automatically mean harsher penalties?
Not every relationship qualifies for enhanced charging under PC § 368(e) — and the caretaker designation is contested in every case where it is legally questionable on the specific facts. The statutory definition of caretaker is any person who has the care, custody, or control of an elder or dependent adult, or who stands in a position of trust with respect to that person. The definition is broad — but it has limits, and not every person who provided assistance to an elder, helped with finances, or had a close personal relationship qualifies as a caretaker under the statute. The specific nature of the relationship, the extent of the defendant's responsibilities, and whether the relationship actually fits the statutory definition are examined in every case. Where the designation is legally questionable, it is challenged to avoid the more aggressive prosecution that PC § 368(e) produces — because the caretaker designation changes how prosecutors approach the case from the first day of the investigation.
Can the prosecution's amount calculation be challenged?
Yes — and this is one of the most important and most frequently successful challenges in PC § 368 cases where mandatory enhancements are alleged. The prosecution's calculation must include only property that was actually taken wrongfully — not property that was legitimately managed, legitimately compensated, or received as a valid gift. Forensic accounting analysis examines what property is properly included, how values are calculated, and whether the total accurately reflects only the allegedly wrongful taking. A reduction below a specific enhancement threshold eliminates the mandatory consecutive years associated with that threshold — which in cases involving amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars can mean the difference between a sentence of a few years and one measured in decades.
What if the case originated from a family dispute about an inheritance?
Many PC § 368 prosecutions are driven not by genuine criminal conduct but by family conflicts — a sibling who felt excluded from financial decisions, an heir who believed the estate should have been distributed differently, or a family member who reported concerns to APS without fully understanding the financial arrangements in place. The reporting family member's financial interest in the outcome — their stake in the estate, their position in conservatorship proceedings, and their personal relationship with the defendant — is all relevant to evaluating the credibility and motivation of the allegation. A prosecution driven by a family dispute rather than genuine criminal conduct is challenged on those grounds from the first day of representation.
Will a PC § 368 conviction affect my immigration status?
Seriously and potentially permanently. Theft and fraud offenses underlying a PC § 368 conviction are crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law — and a felony conviction can constitute an aggravated felony triggering mandatory deportation, detention, removal, and permanent bars to naturalization for non-U.S. citizens. For any non-U.S. citizen facing a PC § 368 charge, immigration consequences must be analyzed from the very first consultation — and every decision, including whether to accept a plea, must explicitly account for that exposure.
Will a conviction affect my professional license?
Potentially and seriously. Financial advisors, attorneys, CPAs, healthcare providers, real estate professionals, caregivers, and other licensed professionals face mandatory reporting and potential license revocation upon a PC § 368 conviction. For most licensed professionals, a felony elder theft or financial elder abuse conviction creates permanent career consequences. Professional license implications are analyzed from the first consultation in every case involving a licensed professional defendant.
Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing an elder theft or financial elder abuse charge goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.
More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174
FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7
Elder theft and financial elder abuse cases move on multiple tracks simultaneously — and every day without experienced defense counsel is a day those tracks advance without anyone protecting the defendant's rights. Every day the Adult Protective Services investigation proceeds without defense counsel present is a day investigators are building a record — gathering financial documents, interviewing family members, and assembling the prosecution's narrative about the defendant's intent — without a defense attorney present to challenge the investigation's direction or protect the defendant from statements that will later be used against them. Every day the prosecution's amount calculation goes unchallenged is a day the specific dollar threshold that triggers mandatory consecutive enhancement years goes uncontested — and the window to present forensic accounting analysis that could eliminate years of mandatory prison time closes before defense counsel has had the opportunity to influence the charging decision. Every day a civil asset freeze order remains in place unchallenged is a day the defendant's access to legitimate personal assets is restricted based on unproven allegations that may not survive a direct legal challenge.
Don't assume the prosecution's narrative about the financial transactions is the only interpretation. Don't assume the elder lacked capacity simply because of age or diagnosis. And don't wait for charges to be formally filed before building a defense. If you are under investigation for theft from an elder or financial elder abuse, if you have been contacted by Adult Protective Services or law enforcement, if a civil asset freeze has been sought, or if you have been formally charged under PC § 368, call now. The earlier David Chesley gets involved, the more options exist to establish authorization, challenge the capacity allegations, contest the prosecution's amount calculation, protect assets from civil freeze, and resolve the case before the mandatory enhancement penalties are locked in.
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Just clear, honest answers about what you are actually facing across every track — criminal, civil, probate, and professional — and what can be done right now.
Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing an elder theft or financial elder abuse charge goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.
David Chesley handles PC § 368 theft from elder and financial elder abuse cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.
Se habla español.
📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com
"A theft from an elder or financial elder abuse charge carries the full weight of society's commitment to protecting vulnerable people — and it is prosecuted with an intensity that ordinary theft cases do not receive. But the prosecution must still prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt: the intent to steal, the absence of authorization, the elder's incapacity if that is alleged, and the specific amount that triggers each mandatory enhancement. Every one of those elements is subject to challenge. My commitment is bringing the forensic, legal, and strategic expertise this charge requires — and fighting for the outcome that reflects what actually happened, not the prosecution's narrative about what happened." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
