Checks, Credit Cards, Forgery
Category > Checks, Credit Cards, Forgery
The term “value” in misdemeanor check forgery provision, refers to the actual monetary worth of the check, not the amount for which it was written. Penal Code section 433, subd.(b) makes check forgery a misdemeanor if the value of the check does not exceed $950. The term “value” refers to the actual monetary worth of the check, not the amount for which it was written. While the written value of a forged check may be evidence of its monetary worth, a defendant may be able to show an uncashed check was worth less than its written value - e.g. by presenting evidence that the check was unlikely to be cashed. id: 25110
One forgery conviction for each victim was appropriate and the remaining counts were reversed. Defendant was convicted of 27 counts of forgery for possessing completed checks with the intent to defraud. (Penal Code section 475, subd.(c).) He argued only one conviction was proper because all 27 checks were possessed on a single occasion. However, three convictions were appropriate because the checks were from three issuers. Defendant thus violated the financial autonomy of three victims and committed forgery once for each victim. The convictions for the other 24 counts were reversed. id: 21556
Evidence did not support the convictions for making false financial statements where the credit card transactions made no representations affirming the buyer’s ability to pay. Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of making false financial statements under Penal Code section 532a. However, the evidence did not show that he arranged for falsified buyer signatures to be placed on any written sale documents affirming the buyer’s ability to pay.id: 23057
A person does not “convey” an access card within the meaning of section 484e, subd.(a) by using the card to buy things without the owner’s permission. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and other offenses including fraudulently conveying an access card in violation of Penal Code section 484e, subd.(a). The charge was based on the defendant’s fraudulent use of the victim’s ATM card when giving it to store clerks to make purchases. But the word “convey” as used in section 484e, subd.(a) does not pertain to the “use” of an access card to buy things without the cardholder’s permission.id: 22205
Evidence did not support defendant’s conviction for passing “fictitious” checks where the checks were real but the account had been closed.Defendant wrote checks on a checking account that he knew had been closed. The evidence did not support the conviction for passing or possessing a fictitious check in violation of Penal Code section 476 because the checks he possessed were not “fictitious.” Because the checks were genuine, defendant’s conduct was prohibited by other statutes, but not section 476.id: 21537
Possession of a counterfeit bill did not support a conviction of possessing materials used in the counterfeit process.Possession of a counterfeit bank bill does not constitute possession of a thing made use of in counterfeiting within the meaning of Penal Code section 480.id: 10391
Evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of making a false financial statement where the false statements did not involve defendant's financial condition.Defendant was convicted of making a false financial statement under Penal Code section 532a, subdivision (1). However, nowhere on the account applications, the request for automated teller card, or the inquiry regarding identification were there any representations regarding the business of financial condition of defendant or her means or ability to pay. The false statements in the documents involved defendant's name, address, and social security number; they did not involve financial condition within the meaning of section 532a, subdivision (1).id: 10385
Inducing a mentally incompetent person to sign a document that has been accurately represented is not forgery.The trial court granted the defendant's motion to set aside the perjury counts. The prosecution argued the defendants committed forgery by creating a false reality in a mentally infirm victim such that when they induced him to sign the documents giving them control and ownership of his assets, he lacked an understanding of what he had done. However, the element of trick or fraud was missing because the defendants did accurately explain to the victim the nature of the documents they induced him to sign.id: 18292
Defendant could not be convicted of two acts of forgery (under different subdivisions of section 470) for signing another person's name to a check and using it to purchase goods.Defendant was convicted of two counts of forgery under Penal
Code section 470(a) for signing another person's name, and two counts of forgery under section 470(d) for making or passing a forged check. Contrary to defendant's claim, the offenses under
subdivision (a) were not lesser included offenses of those listed under subdivision (d). However, two convictions were nevertheless improper since defendant's act of signing another person's name to a check then used to buy things (which he did twice) supported a single act of forgery each time. The two convictions under subdivision (a) were vacated.id: 18990
There can be only one count of forgery per document even if that document had multiple signatures.Defendant was charged with four counts of forgery under Penal Code section 470, subd.(a). While she may have forged her husband’s signature on various documents, she was not charged with forging his signature, only those of Brachna, Gonzales and the Cunninghams. The only documents with their signatures were two notes. Since there were only two forged documents, there can be by two counts of forgery.id: 20719
Defendant could not be separately punished for forgery and theft where forgery was the means used to commit the theft.Defendant could not be separately punished for forgery in counts 9 and 17 because the forgeries were part and parcel of the theft, securities fraud and burglary. She had a single criminal intent – to take the victim’s money. The separate sentences violated Penal Code section 654 and were ordered stayed.id: 20717
Providing forged marriage documents to federal immigration officers did not constitute offering false evidence in violation of section 132.Defendant was convicted of offering false evidence in violation of Penal Code section 132. The provision applies to false materials provided during “any trial, proceeding, inquiry or investigation whatever...” Defendant was correct in arguing that providing forged marriage documents to federal immigration investigators was not a “trial, proceeding, inquiry or investigation” for the purposes of the statute. The conviction was reversed.id: 20718
All but one of the forgery counts were reversed even though there were multiple victims.Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of forging blank checks in violation of Penal Code section 475, subd.(b). The counts involved six different victims but there is no multiple victims exception for forgery. All but one of the forgery counts were reversed.id: 20663
Altering an access card provision requires defendant's actions cause someone other than the original cardholder to be billed.Defendant was convicted of altering an access card in violation of Penal Code section 484f, subdivision (c). In responding to an inquiry from the jury, the court suggested a person is guilty of the offense if the access card is altered with an intent to defraud. However, the court's interpretation of the statute omitted the second element which requires that the defendant's actions cause the billing to go to someone other than the original cardholder. Eliminating the element of the offense was prejudicial and required reversal.id: 15475
Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that if the victim of forgery and false filing could have reasonably discovered the crimes more than three years before the action, it could not convict the defendant of that offense.Defendant's forgery and false filings were aspects of his rent skimming scheme. Therefore both offenses arose from the same conduct and the running of the statute of limitations was tolled by the arrest warrant for the rent skimming offenses. The trial court instructed that defendant could not be convicted of forgery and false filing if the jury found law enforcement officers were reasonably diligent in discovering the crimes more than three years before the commencement of the action. However, the court erred in failing to inform the jury that if it found the victim could have reasonably discovered the crimes more than three years before the commencement of the action, it could not convict defendant of that offense. The error was prejudicial as the false filings played an important part in the rent skimming scheme.id: 10384
Signing Reagan's name on a letter endorsing candidates did not constitute forgery.The definition of forgery in Penal Code section 470 does not extend to the fabrication of a signature on a letter of endorsement of a candidate for public office. Unless the consequential harm of the fabrication is a loss, damage, or prejudice of a legal right, generally a pecuniary or property right, there is no harm of the kind to which the statute is directed and hence no forgery.id: 10392
Fabricating a signature on a letter of endorsement for a political candidate does not constitute forgery.The definition of forgery in Penal Code section 470 does not extend to the fabrication of a signature on a letter of endorsement of a candidate for public office since there is no intent to defraud.id: 10386
Parties arrangement of issuing checks that would be cashed after the weekend precluded a conviction of issuing checks without sufficient funds.Defendant was in the business of selling T-shirts at air shows. Evidence established that she had an arrangement with her supplier whereby she would issue a check to the supplier prior to the weekend and would receive the product (shirts). She would then sell the product over the weekend at the air show and would deposit the proceeds in the bank early in the next week. The supplier would then submit the check for payment. Such an understanding by the parties of present insufficiency precluded a conviction of issuing checks without sufficient funds under Penal Code section 476a because defendant's promise to make a deposit after each air show was no more than a promise to pay. Notwithstanding that a promise made in bad faith as to future conduct may be the basis of a fraud charge, the instant conduct was not embodied in section 476a.id: 10390
Updated 3/7/2024Materiality is not an element of preparing and offering forged documents as evidence.Defendant, a physician, received a speeding ticket and had an employee sign a letter falsely stating that he was responding to a medical emergency at the time of the traffic stop. He was convicted of preparing and offering forged documents as evidence under Penal Code sections 132 and 134. He argued the trial court erred by failing to instruct that materiality was an element of the offenses. However, materiality is not an element and the court did not err in denying defendant’s request.id: 26358
Updated 3/4/2024Intent to defraud is not an element of the possession of counterfeiting equipment under section 480(a). Defendant was convicted of the possession of counterfeiting equipment under Penal Code section 480(a). Intent to defraud is not a element of a section 480(a) offense and the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that the offense requires proof of a criminal intent.id: 26844
Defendant committed credit card fraud by providing an expired debit card and representing that it was not expired. Evidence supported defendant's conviction for credit card fraud under Penal Code section 484g where he provided a company with the credit card authorization containing his expired debit card number, represented that the card had not expired and requested that the card be charged to pay the remaining invoices.id: 21626
Defendant was properly convicted of attempting to pass a forged check and possessing that check.Defendant argued that he was improperly convicted of both making or passing a fraudulent check with the intent to defraud under Penal Code section 476 and possessing a check with the intent to defraud Vons in violation of section 475, subd. (c). Both offenses relate to forgery. Conviction for both offenses was proper as they involved different statutes even though they involved the same subject.id: 23497
Intent to defraud is not an element of selling counterfeit merchandise.efendants sold counterfeit merchandise such as Coach, Louis Vuitton and Chanel. Evidence supported the Penal Code section 350 convictions even without evidence showing the labels were “confusingly similar.” Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claim, the prosecution did not have to prove an intent to defraud. The lack of such an intent does not render the provision unconstitutionally vague.id: 23467
A defendant may be convicted of forgery under section 471 for falsifying entries into the records of a private business.Penal Code section 471 makes it a crime for anyone to forge an entry in “any book of records.” The trial court erred by dismissing several counts after interpreting the provision to apply only to the forgery of public records. The statute also applies to falsifying entries into the records of a private business.id: 22885
Forgery under Penal Code section 530.5, subd.(a) does not require that a defendant have personated another individual in using someone else’s personal identifying information.Defendants were charged with violating Penal Code section 530.5, subd.(a) by engaging in a check forging scheme in which they cashed stolen checks at multiple check cashing stores. The trial court erred by dismissing the charge because contrary to the court’s ruling, the evidence need not show they portrayed themselves to be anyone other than themselves while participating in the check forging scheme.id: 22970
Evidence supported the conviction of forgery from an elder adult even though defendant wrote checks from the victim’s “dba” account. Defendant was convicted of forgery from an elder adult under Penal Code section 368, subd.(d). He argued the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because he was not writing checks from his employer’s personal account but rather from the name of his employer’s “dba”, Sutherland and Associates. However, the law recognizes no distinction between an individual and a name under which he or she does business. Moreover, defendant knew or should have known the money he was stealing belonged to an elder adult rather than a business. id: 21868
Evidence supported preparing a false document for trial conviction where defendant manipulated the DMV into preparing the document based on the information he provided.Evidence supported defendant’s conviction of preparing a false document to be used at trial under Penal Code section 134 where he manipulated the DMV into creating a document based on false information given by him. It did not matter that he did not physically make the document.id: 21156
Evidence showed defendant intended to help conceal the citizenship status of a person seeking immigration documents under section 113.Defendant was convicted of producing false immigration documents under Penal Code section 113. The evidence was sufficient to support an intent to conceal the true citizenship or resident alien status of another person based on his presence at the location of a suspected document counterfeit operation, his knowledge of government issued documents and his interaction with an undercover officer seeking to obtain false documents. id: 20970
Defendant was properly convicted of offering a forged instrument, a confidential marriage certificate on which he stated he was living together as husband and wife with a person who did not live in his home.Defendant was convicted of offering a forged instrument in violation of Penal Code section 115 by reason of having signed a marriage certificate, falsely attesting that he and Seleon had been “living together as husband and wife” pursuant to Family Code section 500. The evidence showed defendant and Seleon had not been living in the same house during the period described. He argued they had been living together since they were married before God prior to a confidential Islamic marriage and had sex consummating their relationship before the marriage. However, for purposes of section 500 “living together” means living under the same roof. Moreover, a confidential marriage certificate may be recorded and is therefore an “instrument” under section 115.id: 20716
Defendants’ multiple convictions of forgery of altered checks were proper where they altered genuine checks and generated fictitious checks at various times during an ongoing forgery operation.Defendants were convicted of multiple counts of forgery of altered checks in violation of Penal Code section 476. They argued only one conviction was proper. However, since the jury could reasonably infer that the defendants not only altered genuine checks but also generated fictitious checks at various times during an ongoing forgery operation, all convictions of the altered checks counts were proper.id: 20664
Defendant could be convicted of sections 484f, subd.(b) and 470, subd.(d) based upon one act of forging the victim’s signature where the former was not a necessarily included offence under the elements test.Defendant was convicted of Penal Code section 470, subd.(d) as well as misdemeanor forgery of an access card transaction under section 484f, subd.(b). Both convictions were based on defendant’s signing of the victim’s name to a Mervyn’s charge receipt. However, under the elements test, the latter offense is not a necessarily included offense of the former and therefore both convictions were proper.id: 20518
Defendant's falsification of two signatures on a single trust deed constituted only one act of forgery.Defendant was convicted of two counts of forgery after he forged the signature of the notary and Michael on a trust deed. However, under Penal Code section 470, subd.(d), defendant's falsification of two signatures on a single trust deed constituted only one act of forgery.id: 20253
Forgery conviction was proper even absent evidence that defendant used any affirmative misrepresentations concerning the nature of the trust deed to produce a genuine signature.Defendant was convicted of forgery of Michael's signature on a trust deed. He argued the conviction was improper because there was no evidence that he used any affirmative misrepresentations concerning the nature of the trust deed to procure her signature. However, the forgery conviction was proper even absent the affirmative misrepresentations.id: 20252
Possession of another's canceled credit card constitutes possession of access card account information with respect to an access card validly issued to another.Fraudulent possession of an access card violates Penal Code section 484 (e), subd.(c), a misdemeanor. Defendant argued that mere fraudulent possession of an access card may not also constitute fraudulent possession of access card account information in violation of section 484e, subd.(d), a wobbler. However, access card account information need not mean something other than the access card itself.id: 17969
A withdrawal slip qualifies as a "completed check" for possession of completed check with intent to defraud provision.Defendant was convicted of possessing a completed check with the intent to defraud pursuant to Penal Code section 457, subd.(c). Under that provision, a bank withdrawal slip filled out by the teller qualifies as a "completed check."id: 19876
The unauthorized use of personal information under section 530.5 does not require an intent to defraud.Defendant entered a Money Mart and used a copy of Pettel's social security card and birth certificate, without Pettel's permission, in an attempt to cash a check. Although made payable to Pettel, the check constituted payment for work done by defendant under Pettel's name. He was convicted of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information under Penal Code section 530.5. Contrary to defendant's claim, that provision does not require an intent to defraud the person whose identity is assumed.id: 18422
Since a forged resident alien card can be used to obtain a social security card and employment, evidence supported the intent to defraud element.Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of a forged or counterfeit resident alien card in violation of Penal Code section 472. He claimed that because he neither presented nor furnished the card to obtain property or money there was no such evidence or an intent to defraud. However, a counterfeit resident alien card would create a legal obligation or right to someone such as a prospective employer. It could also be used, as it was here, to obtain a social security card. Substantial evidence supported the intent to defraud element.id: 17497
Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on a reasonable belief that the funds would be in the account when the check was presented where there was no evidence of that theory and he relied on a different defense.Defendant was convicted of uttering a check with the intent to defraud. He argued the court erred in failing to instruct with CALJIC 15.28, that there is no intent to defraud if defendant believed there would be sufficient funds to cover the check when it was presented for payment. However, the instruction was not required where the defense was not that he reasonably expected funds would be in the account when the check was presented, but rather, that he told the other person not to submit the check for payment because of his cash flow problems. id: 17100
Evidence supported the forgery conviction where defendant presented an officer with a manufactured purchase agreement showing his right to possession of the boat.Defendant had agreed to buy the victim's boat. Under the agreement, he was not to take possession until the full purchase price was paid. When a disagreement arose over his right to possession, defendant presented to the police officer the sales agreement he manufactured along with certain other documents. The purchase agreement was an artifice designed to deceive the officer into believing defendant had a right to possess the boat. The evidence supported defendant's forgery conviction. id: 17101
Evidence supported the conviction of uttering a bad check where defendant originally told the victim to hold the check until March 10th, it bounced after that date and he told her to resubmit the check knowing there were insufficient funds in the account.Defendant told the victim to resubmit a check knowing there was insufficient funds to cover the check. At that time, he uttered it. The evidence supported a conviction for uttering a check with intent to defraud.id: 17102
Defendant's act of forging her sister's name on the traffic citation supported the conviction of felony false personation.Defendant, who was driving with a suspended license was stopped for a traffic offense. She signed her sister's name on the citation. She was convicted of felony false personation in violation of Penal Code section 529. She argued the felony provision was not supported by the evidence since it required an act in addition to falsely identifying herself. However, the additional act was supplied by forging her sister's name on the promise to appear. Moreover, the more specific Vehicle Code section 40504 did not apply because that provision can be violated in a number of ways, and the overlap is not significant enough to preclude prosecution under section 529.id: 15477
Court did not err in instructing that smog certificates were certificates within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 4463.Defendant argued the jury was improperly precluded from determining whether the forged smog certificates were certificates within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 4463. Contrary to defendant's claim, the court did not instruct the jury that a particular element had been established. Instead, the court correctly instructed that smog certificates were certificates under section 4463. That determination was a question of law lying exclusively within the province of the trial court.id: 15476
Bank signature card is the proper subject of a forgery prosecution.Appellant argued that a signature verification card cannot be the subject of forgery within the meaning of Penal Code section 470 because it is not an instrument of a type capable of defrauding as that term is used in the law of forgery. However, appellant's endorsement of the counterfeit check with the fictitious signature, in combination with her fictitious signature on the signature card, would have permitted the deposit of the counterfeit check into the newly opened account. The bank signature card was a crucial document in the scheme to defraud the bank by causing the bank to act upon it as genuine. It was thus the proper subject of a forgery prosecution.id: 10383
Forged order transferring defendant's husband from state prison to a county jail supported the forgery conviction.Defendant, a parole officer, became romantically involved with and married one of her parolees. She was convicted of forging a removal order to have her husband transferred from a state prison to the county jail. She argued her act did not constitute forgery because it was not intended to injure a pecuniary type right. However, the forged removal order was intended to deprive a specific public agency (the Department of Corrections) of a tangible legal right, her husband's legal custody. The evidence, including that of the intent to defraud was sufficient to support the forgery conviction.id: 10387
Materiality is not an element of offering a false or forged instrument for recordation.Defendant was convicted of offering a false or forged instrument for recordation under Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a). He argued the court erred in failing to instruct on materiality as an element of the conviction. However, materiality is not an element of the offense.id: 10388
No unanimity instruction was required as to a single count of forgery involving a single instrument even though the evidence showed different acts of forging and acts of uttering.No unanimity instruction is required as to a single count of forgery involving a single instrument, even though the evidence shows different acts of forging and acts of uttering. Moreover, the statutory inclusion of these acts under the rubric of a single offense does not require a unanimity instruction to avoid a due process violation where the evidence shows both categories of acts in the prosecution of a single count arising out of the forging or uttering of a single instrument.id: 10389
A bank signature card can be the proper subject of a forgery prosecution.Defendant argued that a signature verification card cannot be the subject of a forgery within the meaning of Penal Code section 470 because it is not an instrument of a type capable of defrauding as that term is used in the law of forgery. However, the bank signature card was a crucial document in the scheme to defraud the bank by causing the bank to act upon it as genuine. It was thus the proper subject of a forgery prosecution.id: 10380
A false community work service form is an instrument for purpose of offering a false instrument for filing.It is the practice of the trial court in ordering community service as a condition of probation to require the agency receiving the service, or an administering agency, to complete a work referral form. A false referral form, purportedly completed and indicating defendant's completed hours of service, is an instrument for purposes of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a), which punishes offering a false instrument for filing.id: 10381
An altered TRO is an instrument for purposes of felony offering of a forged instrument.Defendant was convicted of filing a false instrument in violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a) and one count of altering a public record in violation of Government Code section 6201. Evidence established that he obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin his former girlfriend from harassing him and that he altered the document to include additional requirements. Contrary to defendant's claim, the TRO was an instrument pursuant to section 115, subdivision (a). Moreover, the altered TRO also constituted a public record pursuant to section 6201.id: 10382
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245