Our office recently received a number of complaints about counterfeit bills that are being passed locally. The Feds apparently are not interested and we are looking over the possibility of prosecuting these offenders under the forgery statute.
However, I have some concern that it does not fit well under that statute. Forgery requires the making or passing of a writing that purports to be the act of "another." Under PC 1.07, "another" is defined as an "individual, corporation, or association." "Association" is in turn defined as including a government or governmental agency. However, "government" is then defined to include only state, county, and municipal bodies. The problem is that passing bills that purport to be the act of the federal goverment seems to fall through the cracks here.
I would appreciate any thoughts about how to handle the counterfeit cases on the state level and whether there is some other angle on prosecuting them under the forgery statute.

I would make the argument that since Texas has not printed its own money since 1845 or so, and a "writing" is defined in the specific forgery statute (enacted well after 1845) to include money, coins, etc., that the intent of the statute is to cover federally-issued currency.

See 693 S.W.2d 29. State prosecutors have been using the forgery statute for a long time to prosecute fake cash.

And, be sure to note that a forgery is a third degree felony if the writing was money or issued by a "state or national government". That sure seems to indicate that forged cash is a crime of forgery.

[This message was edited by JB on 08-24-10 at .]

I know that this has been done before, seemingly without any concern for the definition of "another." But, it still bothers me that, under the plain meaning of the terms used, it doesn't seem that the federal government is "another."

I appreciate the advioe and that the latter portions of the statute refer to money and to instruments issued by the national government. However, these could still be harmonized with the alternate means of committing forgery under Subsections (a)(1)(A)(ii) & (iii).

Well, if you are concerned about the governmental definition, and since money is issued by the U.S. Treasurer and every bill is signed by that person, why not just allege that the "another" was that "individual"? Then, you could subpoena him and really impress the jury when he says he didn't make or sign that particular bill.

Thanks John. I can always count on you for an interesting and innovative solution.