Reliance on a false representation may be, and in some cases must be, inferred from the evidence. (Perry v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal. 2d at p. 285; People v. Hong Quin Moon (1891) 92 Cal. 41, 42 [27 P. 1096].) However, if the evidence establishes that the victim did not rely on the false pretense, a conviction cannot stand. As Witkin and Epstein note, the reliance or causation element of the crime may be found lacking in three typical situations: '(1) Where the complainant knew the representation was false, or did not believe it to be true. (2) Where, even if he believed it, he did not rely on it, but investigated for himself or sought and relied on other advice. (3) Where, although some false representations are proved, the complainant parted with his money or property for other reasons or in reliance on other representations not shown to be false.' (2 Witkin & Epstein, op. cit. supra, § 612, at p. 696)
The false pretense need not be the sole reason for the victim to part with his money or property. 'The false pretense or representation must have materially influenced the owner to part with ...