Can you successfully prosecute a case of forgery of a check when the check was run as an "electronic check" and then the actual check was destroyed? I know financial institutions usually keep a copy of the check so it should be associated with the victim's bank statement. In this technological age, the old forgery statute may have to be amended to specifically address this. This case still meets the elements of forgery, but it makes prosecution more difficult, right?

You are right. Electronic Checking

We pondered that very problem when the check processing regimen changed. How does one prosecute a forgery when the merchant gives the evidence back to the crook? Short of a confession, I am at a loss. But, hey, that's what the banking industry wanted in the interest of saving money on processing. Guess they might have to pay for some of the consequences. Is the loss pushed onto the merchant or bank?

Bringing an old topic back to the top--could not really find a response to the question.

How do you suggest charging someone when they give the merchant the check, the check is scanned, and the check then returned to the defendant?

Can it still be a forgery when they sign the receipt? What about fraudulant use or possession of identifying information?

Thoughts?