Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.160 (2026)

Possessing or receiving forged instruments or bills

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.160  Possessing or receiving forged instruments or bills.  A person who has in his or her possession, or receives from any other person, any forged promissory note, traveler’s check or money order, or bank bill, or bill for the payment of money or property, with the intention to pass it, or to permit, cause, or procure it to be uttered or passed, with the intention to defraud any person, body politic or corporate, whether the person, body politic or corporate, resides in or belongs to this state or not, knowing it to be forged or counterfeited, or has or keeps in his or her possession any blank or unfinished note, traveler’s check, money order or bank bill, made in the form or similitude of any promissory note or bill for payment of money or property, made to be issued by any person, company, partnership or corporation, with the intention to fill up and complete the blank and unfinished note or bill, or to permit, or cause, or procure it to be filled up and completed in order to utter or pass it, or to permit, or cause, or procure it to be uttered and passed to defraud any person, body politic or corporate, whether in this state or elsewhere, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.

      [1911 C&P § 417; RL § 6682; NCL § 10369]—(NRS A 1967, 497; 1973, 174; 1979, 1442; 1995, 1218)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1973–1977 · leading case: Russell v. State, 505 P.2d 599 (Nev. 1973).
Russell v. State, 505 P.2d 599 (Nev. 1973). “NRS 205.160. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony during redirect examination of a prosecution witness, and also that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.”
Sheriff v. Cunha, 571 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 2× “*568 OPINION Per Curiam: At the conclusion of a preliminary examination, Arthur Cunha was ordered to stand trial for possession of a forged instrument, a violation of NRS 205.160. 1 Cunha then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus contending: (1) there was insufficient evidence…”
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.