ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 312
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 312/6-104 (2026)

Acts prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 312/6-104) (from Ch. 102, par. 206-104)
    Sec. 6-104. Acts prohibited.
    (a) A notary public shall not use any name or initial in signing certificates other than that by which the notary was commissioned.
    (b) A notary public shall not acknowledge any instrument in which the notary's name appears as a party to the transaction.
    (c) A notary public shall not affix his signature to a blank form of affidavit or certificate of acknowledgment.
    (d) A notary public shall not take the acknowledgment of or administer an oath to any person whom the notary actually knows to have been adjudged mentally ill by a court of competent jurisdiction and who has not been restored to mental health as a matter of record.
    (e) A notary public shall not take the acknowledgment of any person who is blind until the notary has read the instrument to such person.
    (f) A notary public shall not take the acknowledgment of any person who does not speak or understand the English language, unless the nature and effect of the instrument to be notarized is translated into a language which the person does understand.
    (g) A notary public shall not change anything in a written instrument after it has been signed by anyone.
    (h) No notary public shall be authorized to prepare any legal instrument, or fill in the blanks of an instrument, other than a notary certificate; however, this prohibition shall not prohibit an attorney, who is also a notary public, from performing notarial acts for any document prepared by that attorney.
    (i) If a notary public accepts or receives any money from any one to whom an oath has been administered or on behalf of whom an acknowledgment has been taken for the purpose of transmitting or forwarding such money to another and willfully fails to transmit or forward such money promptly, the notary is personally liable for any loss sustained because of such failure. The person or persons damaged by such failure may bring an action to recover damages, together with interest and reasonable attorney fees, against such notary public or his bondsmen.
    (j) A notary public shall not perform any notarial act when his or her commission is suspended or revoked, nor shall he or she fail to comply with any term of suspension which may be imposed for violation of this Section.
    (k) No notary public shall be authorized to explain, certify, or verify the contents of any document; however, this prohibition shall not prohibit an attorney, who is also a notary public, from performing notarial acts for any document prepared by that attorney.
    (l) A notary public shall not represent himself or herself as an electronic notary public if the person has not been commissioned as an electronic notary public by the Secretary of State.
    (m) No person shall knowingly create, manufacture, or distribute software or hardware for the purpose of allowing a person to act as an electronic notary public without being commissioned in accordance with this Act. A violation of this subsection (m) is a Class A misdemeanor.
    (n) No person shall wrongfully obtain, conceal, damage, or destroy the technology or device used to create the electronic signature or seal of an electronic notary public. A violation of this subsection (n) is a Class A misdemeanor.
    (o) A notary public shall not sell, rent, transfer, or otherwise make available to a third party, other than the electronic notarization platform, the contents of the notarial journal, audio-video recordings, or any other record associated with any notarial act, including personally identifiable information, except when required by law, law enforcement, the Secretary of State, or a court order. Upon written request of a third party, which request must include the name of the parties, the type of document, and the month and year in which a record was notarized, a notary public may supply a copy of the line item representing the requested transaction after personally identifying information has been redacted.
    (p) The Secretary of State may suspend the commission of a notary or electronic notary who fails to produce any journal entry within 10 days after receipt of a request from the Secretary of State.
    (q) Upon surrender, revocation, or expiration of a commission as a notary or electronic notary, all notarial records or electronic notarial records required under this Section, except as otherwise provided by law, must be kept by the notary public or electronic notary for a period of 5 years after the termination of the registration of the notary public or electronic notary public.
    (r) A notary public shall not charge a fee for any notarial act related to the execution of an Illinois Secretary of State Department of Driver Services Homeless Status Certification form.
(Source: P.A. 104-83, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Floyd May v. Paula Rich, 375 F. App'x 592 (7th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Floyd May v. Paula Rich, 375 F. App'x 592 (7th Cir. 2010). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b). May, who has a history of forgery (he has twice been disciplined for forging money orders), insisted that Rich was the forger this time.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the objector argues that section 6-104(b) of the Illinois Notary Public Act barred Maxine Johnson from serving as a notary public in connection with a referendum where she was the proponent.”
In re Application of the Cnty. Treasurer, 2025 IL App (1st) 240859-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “” 5 ILCS 312/6-104 (West 2020). This is another new argument that is forfeited.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b) (West 2014). ¶ 31 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we also review de novo.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b) (West 2014). ¶ 31 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we also review de novo.”
May, Floyd v. Rich, Paula (7th Cir. 2011). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b). May, who has a history of for- gery (he has twice been disciplined for forging money orders), insisted that Rich was the forger this time.”
Amin v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 423 F. Supp. 2d 914 (W.D. Wis. 2006). “Although Illinois law generally prohibits notaries from “acknowledgfing] any instrument in which the notary’s name appears as a party to the transaction,” 5 ILCS 312/6-104(b), the law provides that “this prohibition shall not prohibit an attorney, who is also a notary public,…”
— 5 ILCS 312/6-104(b) — 6 cases
Floyd May v. Paula Rich, 375 F. App'x 592 (7th Cir. 2010). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b). May, who has a history of forgery (he has twice been disciplined for forging money orders), insisted that Rich was the forger this time.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Specifically, the objector argues that section 6-104(b) of the Illinois Notary Public Act barred Maxine Johnson from serving as a notary public in connection with a referendum where she was the proponent.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b) (West 2014). ¶ 31 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we also review de novo.”
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL App (1st) 162770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b) (West 2014). ¶ 31 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we also review de novo.”
May, Floyd v. Rich, Paula (7th Cir. 2011). “5 ILCS 312/6-104(b). May, who has a history of for- gery (he has twice been disciplined for forging money orders), insisted that Rich was the forger this time.”
— 5 ILCS 312/6-104(k) — 1 case
In re Application of the Cnty. Treasurer, 2025 IL App (1st) 240859-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 5 ILCS 312/6-104 (West 2020). This is another new argument that is forfeited.”
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.