In any prosecution or action under the preceding sections, the making or drawing or uttering or delivery of a check, draft, or order, payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds or credit shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud or of knowledge of insufficient funds in, or credit with, such bank, banking institution, trust company or other depository unless such maker or drawer, or someone for him, shall have paid the holder thereof the amount due thereon, together with interest, and protest fees (if any), within five days after receiving written notice that such check, draft, or order has not been paid to the holder thereof. Notice mailed by certified or registered mail, evidenced by return receipt, to the last known address of the maker or drawer shall be deemed sufficient and equivalent to notice having been received by the maker or drawer.
If such check, draft or order shows on its face a printed or written address, home, office, or otherwise, of the maker or drawer, then the foregoing notice, when sent by certified or registered mail to such address, with or without return receipt requested, shall be deemed sufficient and equivalent to notice having been received by the maker or drawer, whether such notice shall be returned undelivered or not.
When a check is drawn on a bank in which the maker or drawer has no account, it shall be presumed that such check was issued with intent to defraud, and the five-day notice set forth above shall not be required in such case.
Code 1950, § 6.1-117; 1966, c. 584; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 574 S.E.2d 756 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 574 S.E.2d 756 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 24× “" The Supreme Court of Virginia indeed held in Rinkov that, in order for the statutory presumption of intent to defraud to arise under the bad check statute, Code § 18.2-183, the notice to be given defendant must have been mailed by certified or registered mail and evidenced by…”
Steven Lawrence Sykes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 593 S.E.2d 545 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 60× “On appeal, Sykes contends the trial court erred in applying Code § 18.2-183’s evidentiary presumption of fraudulent intent to him because the checks he wrote in this case were drawn on closed, rather than nonexistent, bank accounts.”
Sylvestre v. Commonwealth, 391 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 20× “2-183, providing for an evidentiary presumption of fraudulent intent, was unconstitutionally applied to her because the Commonwealth's evidence showed that she never received the notice letter from the payee of the check.”
Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 561 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 3× “2-183, provided that the making of a check that is refused by the drawee for lack of funds shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud unless the check is paid within five days after the drawer receives written notice that the check has not been paid.”
Payne v. Commonwealth, 281 S.E.2d 873 (Va. 1981).
· cites it 8× “Payne signed the return receipt, and the five-day period prescribed in Code § 18.2-183 lapsed without payment. Upon Hudson's complaint, Payne was indicted under the Bad Check Law and convicted by the trial court, sitting without a jury.”
Foster v. Commonwealth, 606 S.E.2d 518 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Any person who, under the provisions of this act, would be guilty of grand larceny shall, in the discretion of the jury or court trying the case without a jury, be confined in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than five years, or be confined in jail not exceeding…”
Bray v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 837 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Receiving no satisfaction, she employed an attorney who sent a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Bray demanding payment of both checks within five days in accord with Code § 18.2-183. Bray received the letter and signed for it but failed to pay the checks.”
Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 566 S.E.2d 210 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Manifestly the purpose of requiring the notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, and evidenced by a receipt, is to have not only evidence of the required mailing to the defendant, but also evidence that the notice was either received in person by the defendant (as…”
Bagheri v. Commonwealth, 408 S.E.2d 259 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “” On November 17, 1988, Stohlman’s legal counsel sent two certified letters to Bagheri notifying him that the checks were returned unpaid and advising him to pay the debts within five days in accord with Code § 18.2-183. Bagheri signed receipts for both letters.”
Warren v. Commonwealth, 247 S.E.2d 692 (Va. 1978).
· cites it 3× “Without the statutory presumption created by Code § 18.2-183 2 and in the absence of a showing that the $324 check was negotiated last, the defendant asserts, the evidence was insufficient to show that she possessed the necessary fraudulent intent at the time she negotiated the…”
Aircon Distributors, Inc. v. Holt (In Re Holt), 24 B.R. 696 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982).
“§ 18.2-183 which makes the uttering of a check without sufficient funds prima facie evidence of intent to defraud, may be used by this Court to infer the existence of fraudulent intent in bankruptcy.”
Frank Leo Cox, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 59× “The trial court found the Commonwealth’s evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of appellant’s intent to defraud under Code § 18.2-183 and denied appellant’s motion to strike.”
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.