(a) A person is guilty of issuing a bad check when: (1) As a drawer or representative drawer, he issues a check knowing that he or his principal, as the case may be, does not then have sufficient funds with the drawee to cover it, and (A) he intends or believes at the time of issuance that payment will be refused by the drawee upon presentation, and (B) payment is refused by the drawee upon presentation; or (2) he passes a check knowing that the drawer thereof does not then have sufficient funds with the drawee to cover it, and (A) he intends or believes at the time the check is passed that payment will be refused by the drawee upon presentation, and (B) payment is refused by the drawee upon presentation.
(b) For the purposes of this section, an issuer is presumed to know that the check or order, other than a postdated check or order, would not be paid, if: (1) The issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check or order was issued; or (2) payment was refused by the drawee for insufficient funds upon presentation within thirty days after issue and the issuer failed to make good within eight days after receiving notice of such refusal. For the purposes of this subsection, an issuer is presumed to have received notice of such refusal if the drawee or payee provides proof of mailing such notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the issuer at his last-known address.
(c) Issuing a bad check is: (1) A class D felony if the amount of the check was more than two thousand dollars; (2) a class A misdemeanor if the amount of the check was more than one thousand dollars but not more than two thousand dollars; (3) a class B misdemeanor if the amount of the check was more than five hundred dollars but not more than one thousand dollars; or (4) a class C misdemeanor if the amount of the check was five hundred dollars or less.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 130; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 28; P.A. 80-109; P.A. 81-225; P.A. 83-137; P.A. 14-233, S. 6.)
History: 1971 act removed former Subsec. (a) containing applicable definitions; P.A. 80-109 amended Subsec. (b) to add provision re presumption that issuer has received notice of drawee's refusal to pay; P.A. 81-225 included proof of mailing by payee as acceptable in presuming that issuer has received notice; P.A. 83-137 amended Subsec. (c) to reclassify the offense from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony or a class A, B or C misdemeanor depending upon the amount of the check; P.A. 14-233 amended Subsec. (c) to increase check amounts from more than $1,000 to more than $2,000 in Subdiv. (1), from more than $500 but not more than $1,000 to more than $1,000 but not more than $2,000 in Subdiv. (2), from more than $250 but not more than $500 to more than $500 but not more than $1,000 in Subdiv. (3), and from $250 or less to $500 or less in Subdiv. (4).
Cited. 202 C. 443.
Cited. 20 CA 811.
Cited. 34 CS 584. Ability of court to order personal restitution in amount of bad corporate check when there is no finding as to the ability of defendant to pay or as to the extent of his gain; restitution properly ordered against individual defendant issuer of bad corporate check. 35 CS 536.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case:
State v. Bangulescu, 832 A.2d 1187 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
State v. Bangulescu, 832 A.2d 1187 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The defendant, Florian Bangulescu, appeals from the judgments 1 of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of issuing a bad check in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128 (a) (1), forgery in the second degree by completion of a written instrument that he knew to be forged in…”
State v. Crawford, 521 A.2d 1034 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The defendant was charged in the first count of a two count information with issuing a bad check in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128 1 and *445 in the second count with larceny in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125.”
Szarwak v. Warden, 355 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1974).
· cites it 2× “In the second count of his petition the plaintiff pleaded the imposition by the Circuit Court of the sentence of not less than eighteen months nor more than three years for larceny in violation of § 53a-128 of the General Statutes. It is the plaintiff's claim that § 54-la of the…”
State v. Honsch, 349 Conn. 783 (Conn. 2024).
“ce is billed has the intent to obtain the service and to avoid making payment for the service’’ in certain circumstances); General Statutes § 53a-127c (a) (rebuttable presumption that ‘‘person is engaged in the business for profit or economic gain of offering for sale a decoder,…”
Mead v. Dir., Off. of Adult Prob. (In Re Mead), 41 B.R. 838 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1984).
“BACKGROUND On April 26, 1983, Mead was convicted on four counts of issuing bad checks in violation of Connecticut General Statute § 53a-128 and was sentenced to a 90 day prison term, 1 the execution of which was suspended, pursuant to Conn.”
State v. Pilch, 394 A.2d 1364 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1977).
· cites it 7× “The defendant pleaded guilty to a one count information charging him with the crime of issuing a bad cheek in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128. 1 In imposing sentence the trial court ordered the defendant committed to the custody of the commissioner of correction for a…”
Commonwealth v. Goren, 893 N.E.2d 786 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).
“§ 13-1807 (2001); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-128 (2007); Del. Code Ann.”
State v. Garigali, 567 A.2d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
“§ 53a-122, attempted larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124, issuing a bad check in violation of Gen *811 eral Statutes § 53a-128, and failure to appear in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-173.”
State v. Gamer (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “1 In a second file, the defendant was charged with larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev.”
Van Housen v. Monico, 378 A.2d 609 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The issuance of a check with the knowledge that the check will not be paid because the issuer has no account at the drawee bank constitutes a criminal offense under General Statutes § 53a-128. Although the finding contains only the bare bones of the *585 transaction involving…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.