N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 14
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-106 (2026)

Obtaining property in return for worthless check, draft or order

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud another, shall obtain money, credit, goods, wares or any other thing of value by means of a check, draft or order of any kind upon any bank, person, firm or corporation, not indebted to the drawer, or where he has not provided for the payment or acceptance of the same, and the same be not paid upon presentation, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. The giving of the aforesaid worthless check, draft, or order shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to cheat and defraud. (1907, c. 975; 1909, c. 647; C.S., s. 4283; 1993, c. 539, s. 44; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2013-360, s. 18B.14(a).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1960–2008 · leading case: State v. Freeman, 302 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Freeman, 302 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. 1983). · cites it 6× “§ 14-100, where the evidence showed only a violation of G.S. § 14-106 or § 14-107, uttering worthless checks.”
State v. Rogers, 485 S.E.2d 619 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 14-100 (obtaining property under false pretenses) because N.C.G.S. § 14-106 (obtaining property in return for worthless check, draft, or order) or N.”
State v. McKinnon, 242 S.E.2d 545 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “As neither the testimony presented in superior court nor the superior court’s instructions to the jury are included in the record on appeal, we must presume that the charge was correct and the evidence supported the allegations contained in the warrant.”
Cook v. Lanier, 147 S.E.2d 910 (N.C. 1966). “ther a check on a bank for the payment of $23, he, the said William Edward Cook, knowing at the time of making and issuing said check he did not have sufficient funds on deposit in the bank to pay the same, with intent to cheat and defraud the receiver of the check, which was…”
State v. Monroe, 349 S.E.2d 315 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). “The court does not specifically state whether the criminal offense committed was a violation of G.S. 14-106, obtaining property in return for a worthless check, or G.”
State v. Hopkins, 320 S.E.2d 409 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “14-100, when the misdemeanor offense of passing worthless checks, G.S. 14-106 and 14-107, was allegedly applicable.”
Nunn v. Smith, 154 S.E.2d 497 (N.C. 1967). “The record does not show a conviction of the crime charged in either G.S. 14-106 or G.S. 14-107, nor would plaintiff’s evidence in the record permit such conviction.”
Harris v. Temple, 392 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). “In this case defendants having falsely accused plaintiff of giving a worthless check for merchandise in violation of G.S. 14-106, a criminal offense involving moral turpitude, Oates v.”
State v. Freeman, 295 S.E.2d 619 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). “He argues that under the evidence he could have been convicted of violating G.S. 14-106 (obtaining property in return for worthless check, draft or order) or G.”
Commonwealth v. Goren, 893 N.E.2d 786 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “§ 638:4 (2007); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-106 (2007); N.D. Cent.”
Kersey v. Smith, 114 S.E.2d 117 (N.C. 1960). “The defendant Carr, in his answer, set up a cross-action for damages for abuse of process in prosecuting the criminal action against him in uttering a worthless check in violation of the provisions of G.S. 14-106. Plaintiffs demurred to the cross-action on the ground that such…”
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.