![]() ![]() ![]() The defendants, who are husband and wife, were convicted in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, of the crime of forgery as described in Section 29 of the Criminal Code of the United States, under the Section headed "Making, forging, counterfeiting, or altering deeds or powers of attorney transmitting such papers." 18 U.S.C.A. The indictment in this case charges a forgery with intent to defraud the United States by the act of the defendant, Joseph Sonnenberg, in writing the name of the payee on the back of the checks received from the various payees in the instances described above "without the express authority and consent of the said payee." Go to ![]() Does the above set of facts make a case on which the defendants may be convicted for violation of Section 29 of the Criminal Code? The portion of that Section relevant to the question can be stated as follows: "Whoever shall * * * forge * * * or willingly aid, or assist in the * * * forging * * * any * * * order, * * * or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving * * * from the United States, * * * any sum of money * * * shall be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than ten years." The Supreme Court has said that this language announcing a statutory forgery imports an intent to defraud the United States.In accordance with this requirement the Trial Judge carefully charged the jury that it was necessary, before a verdict of guilty could be returned, "that you find an intent to defraud the United States." From the testimony we are unable to find any evidence at all from which an intent to defraud the United States could be found. Furthermore, in order that a conviction under Section 29 be sustained, there must be found an intent to defraud the United States. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |