O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-21 (2019)

Printing, executing, or negotiating checks, drafts, orders, or debit card sales drafts knowing information thereon to be in error, fictitious, or assigned to another account holder

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to print or cause to be printed checks, drafts, orders, or debit card sales drafts, drawn upon any financial institution or to execute or negotiate any check, draft, order, or debit card sales draft knowing that the account number, routing number, or other information printed on such check, draft, order, or debit card sales draft is in error, fictitious, or assigned to another account holder or financial institution. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years, or both.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-9-21, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1570, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1787, § 4.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Lesser included offense of forgery. - Offense of negotiating a fictitious check is a lesser included offense of forgery, and, in a prosecution for forgery, the trial court’s failure to give a charge on negotiating fictitious checks constituted reversible error. Adams v. State, 217 Ga. App. 759, 458 S.E.2d 918 (1995). Jury instruction on negotiating fictitious check not required. - In a trial for first-degree forgery, the trial court did

not err in refusing to give a requested charge on negotiating a fictitious check under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-21 because it was not adjusted to the facts. No evidence was presented at trial that the defendant printed or caused to be printed the check in question. Wilkes v. State, 293 Ga. App. 724, 667 S.E.2d 705 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822, 725 S.E.2d 260 (2012).

ARTICLE 3 ILLEGAL USE OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTION CARDS RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Criminal liability for unauthorized use of credit card, 24 A.L.R.3d 986. Credit card issuer’s liability, under

state laws, for wrongful billing, cancellation, dishonor, or disclosure, 53 A.L.R.4th 231.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1993–2008 · leading case: Wilkes v. State, 667 S.E.2d 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilkes v. State, 667 S.E.2d 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Wilkes argues that negotiating a fictitious check under OCGA § 16-9-21 is a lesser included offense of forgery and that therefore the trial court should have given her requested charge.”
White v. State, 432 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “…McMurray, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur. 1 The court did so as to a fourth count: printing fictitious checks. OCGA § 16-9-21 (a).”
Adams v. State, 458 S.E.2d 918 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Under OCGA § 16-9-21, Adams could be convicted of negotiating a fictitious check if she negotiated a check knowing that the information printed on the check was fictitious.”
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.