California Penal Code § 476 PC prohibits check fraud. You commit this crime by making, passing, uttering, or publishing a fake or fraudulent check in order to obtain something of value.
Examples of check fraud include:
- forging the name of the payor listed on the check without their authorization
- using a fake check from a nonexistent bank or endorsed by a person who does not exist
- changing the dollar amount or payee on a check
- adding or erasing information on the check
- generating a fake check (counterfeit checks)
- using a stolen check
- check kiting, which is depositing checks with the knowledge there are insufficient funds or that the bank account is nonexistent
Check fraud can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony carrying up to three years in jail. Note that check fraud is a separate offense from writing a bad check under 476(a) PC.
In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys address the following topics re. check fraud:
1. Elements of 476 PC
For you to be convicted of check fraud under Penal Code 476 PC, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following three elements of California Criminal Jury Instruction (“CALCRIM”) 1935.
- You possessed or made, passed, or used, or attempted to pass or use, a fictitious, false or altered check or bill for the payment of money or property;
- You knew that the document was false or altered; and
- When you performed this act, you intended to defraud (which means to deceive or trick).1
If you are being charged with possession of a false check, prosecutors must also prove that you intended to pass or use the document you possessed as genuine.
Note that you can be convicted even if no one is defrauded or suffers a loss because of your acts. All that matters is that you represented to someone (directly or indirectly) that the document is genuine or real.2
A “fictitious or fake” check is not real or lawful
2. Defenses
Here at Shouse Law Group, we have represented literally thousands of people charged with check fraud. In our experience, the following four defenses have proven very effective with prosecutors, judges, and juries at getting 476 PC charges reduced or dismissed.
- You had no intent to defraud. Perhaps you wrote the check as part of a prank, or you altered it by accident. As long as the prosecutor cannot prove you had criminal intent, charges cannot stand.
- You had consent to make changes to a check. In these cases, we use every investigative technique available to find emails, memos, or eyewitnesses to show that the person responsible for the check approved of your actions.
- You had no knowledge that a check was bad. Showing a lack of knowledge is one of the strongest defenses against fraud. The prosecutor has no way of positively proving what was happening in your head; meanwhile, we use every litigation trick in the book to poke holes in the state’s arguments.
- You acted under duress. It may be an effective defense if you can show that someone else threatened to immediately harm you or your family if you did not commit check fraud. If this duress defense may apply to your case, we would search for all the available evidence showing that your actions were justified under the circumstances.
Some 476 PC cases are prosecuted by the Attorney General.
3. Penalties
Check fraud in California is punished as forgery, which is a wobbler crime. This means a prosecutor can charge 476 PC cases as either a misdemeanor or a felony based on the facts of the case and your criminal history.
If charged as a misdemeanor, check fraud is punishable by:
- up to 1 year in county jail and/or
- a maximum fine of $1,000.
If charged as a felony, check fraud is punishable by:
- 16 months, 2 years, and 3 years in county jail and/or
- a maximum fine of $10,000.
In addition to any fines and incarceration, the judge may order you to pay full restitution to any victims in your case.3
Check fraud cases can usually be expunged from your record once your case is over.4 However, a felony conviction:
- will strip you of your gun rights5 and
- can lead to deportation if you are not an American citizen.6
Having a check fraud conviction on your record may make it more difficult to get employment, housing, and loans.
4. Related Offenses
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- The Inappropriateness of the Bad Checks Penalty – University of Michigan Public Law.
- Bad Checks Make Bad Law and Bad Policy – Air Force Law Review.
- Bad check diversion program collection letters may violate federal consumer protection laws – Journal of the National District Attorneys Association.
- Problems with Bad Checks in Bankruptcy – Business Law Review.
- Time to Close the Collection Agency: Addressing the Abuse of Bad Check Laws – Charleston Law Review.
Legal References:
- California Penal Code 476 PC.
Every person who makes, passes, utters, or publishes, with intent to defraud any other person, or who, with the like intent, attempts to pass, utter, or publish, or who has in his or her possession, with like intent to utter, pass, or publish, any fictitious or altered bill, note, or check, purporting to be the bill, note, or check, or other instrument in writing for the payment of money or property of any real or fictitious financial institution as defined in Section 186.9 is guilty of forgery.
CALCRIM No. 1935 – Making, Passing, etc., Fictitious Check or Bill. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition). - People v. Mathers (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1464. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66. See also People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735. CALCRIM No. 1935. See also People v. Morgan (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 796. See also People v. Tomlinson (1868) 35 Cal. 503; and, People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104. See also People v. Nesseth (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 712; and, People v. Hall (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 343.
- See note 1. California Penal Code 470 PC.
- California Penal Code 1203.4 PC.
- California Penal Code 29800(a)(1) PC. See also People v. McGhee (2025) 17 Cal. 5th 612 (re. collateral consequences of a conviction).
- Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2006), 449 F.3d 1051.