570.125. Fraudulently stopping payment on an instrument — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of fraudulently stopping payment of an instrument if he or she, with the purpose to defraud, stops payment on a check, draft, or debit device used in payment for the receipt of goods or services.
2. The offense of fraudulently stopping payment of an instrument is a class A misdemeanor, unless the face amount of the check or draft is seven hundred fifty dollars or more or, if the stopping of payment of more than one check or draft is involved in the same course of conduct, the aggregate amount is seven hundred fifty dollars or more, in which case the offense is a class E felony.
3. It shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section if a person stops payment on a check, draft, or debit device and fails to make good the check, draft, or debit device transaction, or fails to return or make and comply with reasonable arrangements to return the property for which the check, draft, or debit device was used in the same or substantially the same condition as when received within ten days after notice in writing from the payee that the check, draft, or debit device transaction has not been paid because of a stop payment order by the issuer to the drawee.
4. "Notice in writing" means notice deposited as certified or registered mail in the United States mail and addressed to the issuer at his address as it appears on the dishonored check, draft, or debit device transaction or to his last known address. The notice shall contain a statement that failure to make good the check, draft, or debit device transaction within ten days of receipt of the notice may subject the issuer to criminal prosecution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1985–2014 · leading case:
State v. Gomez, 863 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Gomez, 863 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Pablo Gomez was convicted by a jury of fraudulently stopping payment of a check in violation of Section 570.125 RSMo (1986). Mr. Gomez was sentenced to three years imprisonment.”
Deaton v. State, 705 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “120, RSMo 1978), stopping payment of an instrument (§ 570.125, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1984), fraudulent use of a credit device (§ 570.”
Fin. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Norris (In re Norris), 64 B.R. 79 (W.D. Mo. 1986).
· cites it 5× “Such an act is made criminal by the provisions of section 570.125 RSMo. In invoking the claim of a Fifth Amendment privilege to these questions, the witness Brim must be held to have given notice that proof that he stopped payment on a check is an element of the offense thus…”
John McGee v. Jonathon Broz (8th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “McGee with "fraudulently stopping payment of an instrument" in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.125 . Mr. McGee was arrested on a warrant and briefly incarcerated.”
State v. McCarty, 431 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Following a bench trial, Eric McCarty (“Defendant”) now appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding Defendant guilty of fraudulently stopping payment on an instrument, in violation of Section 570.125. *539 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal…”
Gary Wayne Pyatt v. Tracy A. Brown (8th Cir. BAP 2006).
“6 Moreover, because a trustee is the only party the Code authorizes to recover postpetition transfers, placing responsibility on the trustee for doing so under these circumstances is also the only option that advances the goal of equal distribution among creditors.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.125(1) — 1 case
State v. Gomez, 863 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
“Pablo Gomez was convicted by a jury of fraudulently stopping payment of a check in violation of Section 570.125 RSMo (1986). Mr. Gomez was sentenced to three years imprisonment.”
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.