R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 19-9-25 (2026)

Fraudulent checks — Large amounts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person who purchases any goods, materials, or services, pays for that purchase by check, draft, or order for payment of money, and takes possession of the item, and who subsequently orders payment stopped on the check, draft, or order for payment, or who, with intent to defraud, makes, draws, utters, or delivers any check, draft, or order for the payment of money, in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), upon any regulated institution or other depository, knowing at the time of making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in, or credit with, that regulated institution or other depository for the payment of the check, draft, or order, in full, upon its presentation, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or be imprisoned not more than two (2) years, or may be subjected to both fine and imprisonment.

(b) With regard to the purchase of any goods or materials, it shall not be in violation of this section if goods or materials are returned to the vendor within three (3) business days of the filing of the stop payment order.

(c) The word “credit” means an arrangement or understanding with the regulated institution or other depository for the payment of the check, draft, or order.

(d) Any person violating any of these provisions may be prosecuted and proceeded against in any judicial district or in any county in which the offense was committed, or in which the check, draft, or order was uttered or delivered.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: State v. Forbes, 779 A.2d 637 (R.I. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Forbes, 779 A.2d 637 (R.I. 2001). · cites it 5× “Forbes was charged by information with uttering and delivering with intent to defraud, a check in the amount of $32,000 “knowing at the time that he did not have sufficient funds and credit” to satisfy the check in violation of § 19-9-25. A jury trial was held in Washington…”
State v. Judith Rosenbaum, 114 A.3d 76 (R.I. 2015). · cites it 2× “I Facts and Procedural History On June 23, 2009, defendant was charged by criminal information with four counts of uttering or delivering checks in an amount exceeding $1,500 with intent to defraud, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 19-9-25 (counts 1-4); one count of misappropriating…”
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.