What is the proper way to Indict when the Defendant cashed a check that was actually written by the victim but not written to the Defendant? For example, Mrs. Smith has a checking account and writes a check to Mrs. Jones but then the Defendant (Ms. Thief) obtains the check and cashes it to herself (using her own name--Ms. Thief). Mrs. Jones never received the money. Is it incorrect to list Mrs. Jones as the victim as she did not authorize the Defendant (Ms. Thief) to cash the check on her behalf? It doesn't seem to make sense to list Mrs. Smith as the victim when she did in fact write the check and Ms. Thief did not alter the check.

Any problems with the following:

"did then and there, with intent to defraud or harm another, execute a writing so it purported to be the act of Mrs. Jones, who did not authorize the act, and the writing was a check of the tenor following [copy of check inserted]."

All thoughts appreciated.

Much of the answer to your questions likely depends on provisions of Chapters 3 and 4 of the UCC. For example, it appears that the drawee bank may have paid the check with a missing indorsement (that of the named payee). Jones is not a "victim" since the check was not charged against any of her funds, and see 3.401. Smith may have a claim to have the funds restored to her account if she was not negligent under 3.406 or 4.406, in which case the drawee bank may become the true victim. If Thief did not forge Jones' indorsement, then maybe her indorsement did not purport to be the act of Jones. But, if Thief took the check directly to the drawee for payment (as the holder), I guess maybe she represented herself to be Jones.

I would carefully consider exactly what "the act" means in your indictment, and probably not use the face of the check as "the writing," since I guess all of the writing on the front was that made by Smith.

It might be easier to charge just theft than figure all this negotiable instrument and banking law out.