NRS
205.132 Issuance of check or draft without sufficient money or credit:
Presumptions of intent to defraud and knowledge of insufficiency; malice in
causing prosecution.
1. In a criminal action for issuing a
check or draft against insufficient or no funds with intent to defraud, that
intent and the knowledge that the drawer has insufficient money, property or
credit with the drawee is presumed to exist if:
(a) The instrument is drawn on a purported
account which does not exist.
(b) Payment of the instrument is refused by the
drawee when it is presented in the usual course of business, unless within 5
days after receiving notice of this fact from the drawee or the holder, the
drawer pays the holder of the instrument the full amount due plus any handling
charges. For the purposes of this paragraph, presentation of a check or draft
that constitutes a credit instrument, as defined in NRS 463.01467, occurs in the usual course
of business if the presentation occurs not more than 2 years after the date on
which the credit instrument is issued.
(c) Notice of refusal of payment, sent to the
drawer by registered or certified mail at an address printed or written on the
instrument, is returned because of nondelivery.
2. If a complainant causes a criminal
action to be commenced for issuing a check or draft with intent to defraud and
refuses to testify in the action, the complainant is presumed to have acted
maliciously and without probable cause.
(Added to NRS by 1979,
1010; A 1993,
145; 2025,
1570)
Notes of Decisions
Tuan Ngoc Nguyen v. State, 14 P.3d 515 (Nev. 2000).
“NRS 205.132. We conclude that Nguyen’s intent to defraud was circumstantially demonstrated by his failure to pay the full amount due within the statutory period, and by the return of the instruments from his bank with the notation “Account Closed.”
Fidler v. Donahue (In re Fidler), 442 B.R. 763 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010).
“§ 205.132(1) respectively). Id. Fidler argues that the criminal complaints are brought in bad faith, solely motivated by a desire to collect a debt, and therefore properly under the control of the bankruptcy court and subject to injunction.”
Zahavi (harel) Vs. State, 2015 NV 7 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 6× “130 and NRS 205.132. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.”
Chen (Chin) v. Lombardo, No. 76846 (Nev. Oct. 17, 2018).
· cites it 2× “2d at 680 , I believe petitioner may have presented a purely legal question challenging the applicability of the statutory presumption set forth in NRS 205.132(1)(b) that is appropriate for this court's review at this time, Ost man v.”
Zahavi (harel) Vs. State, 2015 NV 7 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 3× “130 and NRS 205.132. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.”
Perry (Gregory) v. State, No. 72006 (Nev. Sept. 19, 2017).
“For purposes of satisfying the intent element, NRS 205.132 creates a rebuttable presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds and an intent to defraud under three specific instances: if the check is drawn on an account that does not exist; payment is refused by the drawee upon…”
Oldfield (Alastair) v. Dist. Ct. (State), No. 74947 (Nev. Mar. 15, 2018).
“Petitioner argues that the justice court and the district court erroneously applied the statutory presumption set forth in NRS 205.132(1) (intent to defraud presumption).”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.132(1): 4 cases
Fidler v. Donahue (In re Fidler), 442 B.R. 763 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010).
“§ 205.132(1) respectively). Id. Fidler argues that the criminal complaints are brought in bad faith, solely motivated by a desire to collect a debt, and therefore properly under the control of the bankruptcy court and subject to injunction.”
Zahavi (harel) Vs. State, 2015 NV 7 (Nev. 2015).
“130 and NRS 205.132. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.”
Oldfield (Alastair) v. Dist. Ct. (State), No. 74947 (Nev. Mar. 15, 2018).
“Petitioner argues that the justice court and the district court erroneously applied the statutory presumption set forth in NRS 205.132(1) (intent to defraud presumption).”
Zahavi (harel) Vs. State, 2015 NV 7 (Nev. 2015).
“130 and NRS 205.132. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.132(1)(b): 1 case
Chen (Chin) v. Lombardo, No. 76846 (Nev. Oct. 17, 2018).
“2d at 680 , I believe petitioner may have presented a purely legal question challenging the applicability of the statutory presumption set forth in NRS 205.132(1)(b) that is appropriate for this court's review at this time, Ost man v.”
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.