Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
3. LINA LIM LAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
G.R. No. 119178. June 20, 1997
4. VICTOR TING SENG DEE and EMILY CHAN-AZAJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 140665. November 13, 2000
7. From: http://www.ckfraud.org/penalties.html
National Check Fraud Center
Bad Check Laws by States
Bad checks, also known as NSF checks, bounced checks, rubber checks,
insufficient checks, bogus checks, etc., can be a big problem for an individual
or for any size company. There are both civil and criminal penalties for this
unlawful act, although it is much more costly and difficult to prove a criminal
case. Always consider your goal: to recover the money or punish the check
writer?
In most cases, NSF checks are not considered under the bad check law if they
are used to pay an antecedent debt. Therefore, if a debtor gives a debtor an
NSF check to pay a note payment or to pay an invoice that is on account, the
act generally does not fall within the bad check law. However, if the debtor
provides a creditor with a NSF check for a COD order, then that act does fall
within the bad check laws.
Postdated Checks:
Section 3-104(2)(b) of the UCC, defines a check as "a draft drawn on a bank
and payable on demand." A postdated check, since it is not payable on
demand, does not satisfy this demand. Consequently, it has generally been held
by most states that the giving of a post-dated check does not constitute a
present fraud nor is it within the scope of the bad check laws.
The guilty party of a fraudulent check is usually the person who signed the
check, but it could also be the person who fraudulently passed it on, or even a
third party who endorsed and passed the check on to another.
The following information may be out of date when you read this. Check state
statutes for current laws.
Alabama. Check of $500 or more, fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5000
or imprisonment up to 3 years, or both; under $500 check, fine depends on
amount and offense. Court shall also order restitution to plaintiff; defendant shall
pay court costs if convicted.
Alaska. Issuing check for $25,000 or more, maximum fine of $50,000,
imprisonment up to 10 years, or both, Issuing check for $500 or more, up to
$25,000, maximum fine of $50,000, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. Issuing
check for $50 or more, up to $500, maximum of $5000, imprisonment up to one
year, or both. Issuing check under $50, maximum fine of $1000, imprisonment up
to 90 days, or both.
Arizona. Up to six months in jail or up to $300 or both if under $25; up to five years
in state prison or up to one year in county jail or up to $500 fine or both if
between $25 and $100; up to five years in state prison if over $100 or if no
account.
Arkansas. Checks of $200 or less for 1st conviction fine of not less than $50 nor
more than $500 or imprisonment up to 30 days or both; 2nd offense fine of not
less than $100 nor more than $1000 or imprisonment up to 90 days or both; 3rd
and subsequent offenses fine of not less than $200 nor more than $2000 or
imprisonment up to one year or both.
When more than one check is involved and such checks were drawn within 90
days of each other and each is an amount less than $200, the amount of such
separate checks may be added together to arrive at and be punishable under
the $200 or more amount to which this category refers.
Check for $500 or more; a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by
imprisonment for up to three years, or both.
8.
From: IRISH NEWS http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/customers-bouncing-
cheques-now-face-jail-25885702.html
The court heard that Corcoran was unaware that the new legislation had just
come into force before the date of the offences.
Sergeant Mary Ann Donoghue said that Corcoran had been renovating a
house he had purchased and had acquired goods from T O'Higgins
Builders Providers in Galway city. He wrote cheques to a total amount of
?4,234, but these were all returned.
He also bought a bathroom suite from Bathroom World in Galway for ?1,100 and
paid for it with a cheque that was later dishonoured. Corcoran had earlier
bought other goods to a total value of more than ?5,000 from the same
supplier with cheques that were also returned unpaid.
Sgt Donoghue said that all outstanding amounts, including other sums not
detailed in the charges before the court, had since been repaid in full by
the accused.
Judge Kenny noted that the accused had been advised by his bank not to
write cheques until the account was in funds, but he had gone ahead
and written cheques to suppliers, knowing full well that they would be
dishonoured.
Judge Kenny noted that it was a serious offence and that, under the 2001 Act,
the bouncing of a cheque could have serious consequences for an
offender, carrying fines and a prison sentence. He imposed a sentence of
18 months in prison, but suspended it for three years.
Reacting to the court case, Mark Fielding chief executive of the small business
lobby group ISME said the new law "was a deterrent but it does not mean
businesses who receive cheques which bounce will get their money back
any faster".
Mr Fielding said that companies and consumers needed to be made aware of
the new law and said he welcomed measures to crack down on people
writing cheques without funds to back them.