Using the Internet or a Computer to Commit a Crime in Michigan (MCL 750.145d)

MCL 750.145d is a stand-alone Michigan offense that can be charged in addition to another crime. It prohibits using the internet or a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system to communicate with any person for the purpose of committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit certain listed crimes.^[8][1] For the sex offenses on the list, the victim or intended victim must be a minor or be believed by the accused to be a minor.^[1]

This page explains which underlying crimes are listed, how the six penalty tiers work, when sentences can be stacked, and how courts have applied the "believed to be a minor" wording.

Which underlying crimes are listed?

Subsection (1) has three groups.^[8]

Subdivision	Underlying conduct	Minor-victim condition?
(1)(a)	Conduct proscribed under MCL 750.145a (accosting a child), 750.145c (child sexually abusive activity or material), 750.157c, 750.349 and 750.350 (kidnapping and related offenses), 750.520b to 750.520e (criminal sexual conduct in the first through fourth degree), 750.520g (assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct), or MCL 722.675 (disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor)[1]	Yes: the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by the person to be a minor[1]
(1)(b)	Conduct proscribed under section 411h or 411i (stalking and aggravated stalking)[8]	None stated[8]
(1)(c)	Conduct proscribed under chapter XXXIII or section 327, 327a, 328, or 411a(2) of the Penal Code[8]	None stated[8]

This guide is concerned with subdivision (a). The underlying offenses are explained on their own pages, including accosting a child, child sexually abusive material, criminal sexual conduct and disseminating sexually explicit matter to minors. Stalking is covered in the sister guide at Stalking under MCL 750.411h.

What the prosecution must prove

The statute is built around a communication and its purpose. The elements in the text are that the person used the internet or a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system; that the use was to communicate with any person; and that the purpose was committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit a listed crime.^[8] Under subdivision (a) there is the further condition about a minor or believed minor.^[1]

Two definitions widen the statute's reach. "Computer" includes a computer game device or a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant, or other handheld device.^[5] "Minor" means an individual who is less than 18 years of age, even though some of the underlying offenses use a lower age line of their own.^[5][9]

The Court of Appeals rejected a free-speech challenge to the statute in People v Cervi, reasoning that "words alone" are not punishable; what the statute criminalizes is communication with a minor or perceived minor with the specific intent to make that person the victim of one of the enumerated crimes.^[10]

The six penalty tiers

The penalty is not fixed. It is set by the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime.^[3]

If the underlying crime is punishable by a maximum of…	The computer offense is…	Maximum
Less than 1 year	Misdemeanor	1 year, a fine of up to $5,000, or both[2]
1 year or more but less than 2 years	Felony	2 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both[2]
2 years or more but less than 4 years	Felony	4 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both[2]
4 years or more but less than 10 years	Felony	10 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both[3]
10 years or more but less than 15 years	Felony	15 years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both[11]
15 years or more, or life	Felony	20 years, a fine of up to $20,000, or both[3]

Two examples show how the tiers work. Accosting a child is a felony with a 4-year maximum, so the matching computer offense carries up to 10 years.^[9][3] Producing child sexually abusive material carries a 20-year maximum, so the matching computer offense carries up to 20 years.^[12][3]

In some pairings the computer charge has a higher maximum than the crime it is attached to, as the accosting example shows.^[9][3]

Can the sentences be stacked?

Three subsections deal with the relationship between this charge and the underlying one.

• Consecutive sentences are allowed. The court may order that a term of imprisonment under MCL 750.145d be served consecutively to any term imposed for the underlying offense.^[4] The word is "may"; the statute leaves the decision to the judge.^[4]
• Both charges can be brought. The section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law committed while violating it, including the underlying offense.^[13]
• No conviction on the underlying offense is needed. The section applies regardless of whether the person is convicted of committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit the underlying offense.^[4]

Michigan appellate courts have also held that each online communication made with the required intent can be charged separately.^[10] How consecutive sentencing works in general is explained in Consecutive sentences.

The court may also order a convicted person to reimburse the state or a local unit of government for expenses incurred in relation to the violation.^[14]

When the "minor" is an adult officer or decoy

Because subdivision (a) covers an intended victim who "is believed by that person to be a minor," the statute does not depend on an actual child being on the other end of the communication.^[1] Michigan appellate courts have upheld charges under MCL 750.145d where the perceived minor was an undercover officer or an adult decoy.^[10]

That wording answers the question whether a charge can be brought. It does not answer whether the police acted lawfully in a given investigation. Entrapment is a separate issue that the trial judge decides at a hearing, under a two-prong test whose framework the Michigan Supreme Court clarified on July 31, 2026 in People v Jade.^[15][16] Both subjects are explained in Online sting operations and The entrapment defense in sex stings.

Where the case can be prosecuted

A violation or attempted violation occurs if the communication originates in Michigan, is intended to terminate in Michigan, or is intended to terminate with a person who is in Michigan.^[17] It may be prosecuted in any jurisdiction in which the communication originated or terminated.^[17]

A separate general statute allows Michigan to prosecute an offense committed while the person was physically outside the state if, among other grounds, a victim or a government employee or agent posing as a victim resides in or is located in Michigan when the offense is committed.^[18]

Federal law has its own enticement offense. Under 18 USC 2422(b), using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempting to, is punishable by a fine and imprisonment for not less than 10 years or for life.^[19] See Federal enticement of a minor.

Registration and record consequences

A violation of MCL 750.145d(1)(a) is a Tier II offense under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, except for a violation arising out of a violation of section 157c.^[7] A Tier II offender must comply with the act for 25 years.^[20] See SORA tiers.

A conviction for a violation or attempted violation of MCL 750.145d cannot be set aside, by application or automatically.^[6] See Expunging a sex offense conviction.

What people get wrong

"It is just a sentencing enhancement." It is a separate crime with its own conviction, and it applies even without a conviction on the underlying offense.^[4]

"It only applies to desktop computers." The definition of "computer" includes a cellular telephone or other handheld device.^[5]

"The sentences always run back to back." Consecutive sentencing is permitted, not mandatory, under this statute.^[4]

"Sending a message is enough." The Court of Appeals has said words alone are not punishable; the communication must be for the purpose of one of the listed crimes.^[10][8]

The statute's text was last amended by 2012 PA 353, effective January 1, 2013.^[21]