Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (2026)
Bad checks, electronically converted checks or electronic commercial debits and insufficient funds
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) It shall be unlawful for any person with fraudulent intent:
- (a) To make, draw, issue, utter, deliver, or authorize any check, draft, electronically converted check, or electronic commercial debit to obtain money, delivery of other valuable property, services, the use of property or credit extended by any licensed gaming establishment drawn on any real or fictitious bank, corporation, firm or person, knowing at the time of making, drawing, issuing, uttering, delivering or authorizing said check, draft, order, electronically converted check, or electronic commercial debit that the maker, drawer or payor has not sufficient funds in or on deposit with such bank, corporation, firm or person for the payment of such check, draft, order, electronically converted check, or electronic commercial debit in full, and all other checks, drafts or orders, or electronic fund transfers upon such funds then outstanding;
- (b) To close an account without leaving sufficient funds to cover all outstanding checks, electronically converted check, or electronic commercial debit written or authorized on such account.
- (2) For purposes of Sections 97-19-55 through 97-19-69:
- (a) "Check" includes a casino marker issued to any licensed gaming establishment.
- (b) "Credit" means an arrangement or understanding with a bank, corporation, firm or person for the payment of a check or other instrument.
- (c) "Electronically converted check" means a single-entry electronic debit transaction initiated with a check and cleared through the ACH Network as an Accounts Receivable Entry, a Point of Purchase Entry, or a Back Office Conversion Entry.
- (d) "Electronic commercial debit" means an electronic debit transaction initiated through the ACH Network by a person for commercial, and not consumer, purposes whereby (i) the payor has signed an agreement to pay the payee for goods or services provided, (ii) as part of that agreement and as a condition thereof the payor provides the payee its bank and account information for the purposes of initiating such a debit in payment for the service or goods provided, (iii) the payee delivers such goods or services to the payor in reliance upon the agreement and the payor's debit authorization, and (iv) the payee initiates such a debit for such purposes. This definition does not include a consumer transaction governed by the Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 USC Section 1693 et seq.) and its implementing Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 205) or a credit transaction governed by Section 75-4A-101 et seq., Mississippi Code of 1972.
- (e) "Payor" means the party making payment through the referenced transaction.
- (f) "Payee" means the party receiving payment through the referenced transaction.
- (g) "Payor bank" is the bank on whom the payor's funds are drawn for the purposes of making payment through the referenced transaction.
- (h) "Payee bank" is the bank through which payee is collecting funds for deposit into the payee's account by using the referenced transaction.
Codes, 1942, § 2153-01; Laws, 1972, ch. 476, § 1; Laws, 1983, ch. 523, § 1; Laws, 1998, ch. 477, § 1; Laws, 2002, ch. 311, § 1; Laws, 2009, ch. 454, § 2, eff. 7/1/2009.
Amended by Laws, 2016, ch. 331, SB 2704, 1, eff. 4/4/2016.
Amended by Laws, 2015, ch. 323, HB 272, 1, eff. 7/1/2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Lyles v. State, 12 So. 3d 532 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
Lyles v. State, 12 So. 3d 532 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Lyles appeals the judgment of the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court which convicted him of violating Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-19-55 (Rev.2000) for obtaining merchandise of a total value of $100 or more under false pretenses by knowingly and intentionally writing a bad…”
Durham v. State, 74 So. 3d 908 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “[4] See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (Supp. 2011).”
Demario Walker v. State of Mississippi, 230 So. 3d 703 (Miss. 2017). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (Supp. 2016), Walker also was ordered to- pay $1,018.”
McLaughlin v. City of Canton, Miss., 947 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “Everyone agrees that the plaintiff passed a bad check; which is expressly prohibited by Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 19 of the Mississippi “bad check” statute.”
Broome v. Broome, 832 So. 2d 1247 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (Rev.2000). ¶ 18.”
Hindman v. State, 378 So. 2d 663 (Miss. 1980). “*664 SMITH, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Dan Hindman was convicted in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County under an indictment charging him with obtaining valuable services by false pretenses under the "bad" check statute, Mississippi Code…”
Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Less than a month later, Walker pled guilty to two felony counts of uttering bad checks in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-19-55 (Rev.2006). The Mississippi Parole Board subsequently revoked Walker’s parole on the attempting-to-utter-forgery crime based upon…”
Henderson v. State, 534 So. 2d 554 (Miss. 1988). “HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal by Donna Henderson of her conviction in the circuit court of Pearl River County for obtaining money under false pretenses by writing a bad check, in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (1984). Because the only…”
Bailey v. State of Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2005). “BACKGROUND Plaintiffs were convicted of violating Mississippi’s Bad Check law, Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55, in Hinds County, Mississippi.”
Shamburger v. Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 2d 794 (S.D. Miss. 1998). “Section 97-19-55 et seq. (“the Mississippi Bad Check Statutory Scheme”); (see Exhibit 20).”
Harvey v. Caesars Ent. Operating Co., 55 F. Supp. 3d 901 (N.D. Miss. 2014). “The motion will be denied as to Caesars Entertainment Corporation and granted as to the remaining defendants seeking relief through this motion. C. Intervener Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings The Mississippi Attorney General has filed…”
United States v. Terry Kitchen, 428 F. App'x 593 (6th Cir. 2011). “1 See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 97-19-55, 97-19-67(l)(a).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-55(1)(a) — 1 case
Durham v. State, 74 So. 3d 908 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “[4] See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (Supp. 2011).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-55(2)(a) — 1 case
Harvey v. Caesars Ent. Operating Co., 55 F. Supp. 3d 901 (N.D. Miss. 2014). “The motion will be denied as to Caesars Entertainment Corporation and granted as to the remaining defendants seeking relief through this motion. C. Intervener Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings The Mississippi Attorney General has filed…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-55(l)(a) — 1 case
Durham v. State, 74 So. 3d 908 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “[4] See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-55 (Supp. 2011).”
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.