of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Forgery, under Minnesota law, encompasses a range of deceptive acts involving the creation, alteration, or use of false documents or objects, or the falsification or destruction of records and evidence, all typically done with an intent to injure or defraud someone. Governed primarily by Minnesota Statutes § 609.63, this offense addresses conduct considered less severe than Aggravated Forgery (§ 609.625), often involving items like false identification, fake membership cards, counterfeit labels on merchandise, or falsified business records. It also uniquely includes acts like destroying potential evidence or knowingly presenting forged documents in legal proceedings. Unlike aggravated forgery which focuses on high-stakes documents like deeds or court orders, § 609.63 deals with a broader category of falsifications impacting identification, commerce, associations, transportation, business integrity, and legal processes.
The core element linking the diverse acts under § 609.63 is the underlying intent to injure or defraud (for most acts) or specific knowledge (for using false ID or offering forged evidence). It’s about deliberate deception or interference with truth and authenticity. This could manifest as using a fake ID to enter a bar, putting counterfeit labels on products to pass them off as genuine, creating a false union membership card, altering business receipts to embezzle funds, or shredding documents relevant to an upcoming lawsuit. The statute also specifically addresses the serious act of knowingly submitting forged evidence in court or other legal hearings, recognizing the profound impact such an act has on the justice system. Understanding the specific actions prohibited by this statute is key to recognizing forgery in its various forms.
Forgery in Minnesota, as defined by Minnesota Statutes § 609.63, involves several distinct types of misconduct related to falsifying documents, objects, or records, or interfering with evidence, generally requiring an intent to injure or defraud. It’s a category of offense separate from Aggravated Forgery (§ 609.625) and Check Forgery (§ 609.631). Section 609.63 covers acts such as knowingly using a false writing for identification or recommendation purposes; placing counterfeit labels on merchandise or possessing such items; falsely creating, altering, or possessing fake membership cards for various organizations or unions; creating or possessing fake transportation tickets; falsifying private business records through alteration, false entry, or omission; unlawfully falsifying public records; or destroying potential evidence needed for a legal proceeding. The common thread is deceit or interference with authenticity, aimed at harming someone or gaining an unfair advantage.
Furthermore, § 609.63 specifically criminalizes the act of knowingly offering forged evidence in any trial, hearing, or other legal proceeding authorized by law. This provision underscores the seriousness of attempting to mislead the justice system with fabricated documents or objects. The penalties for this particular act can be higher if the forged evidence is presented during a felony trial. Overall, the statute aims to protect the reliability of identification, the integrity of commerce and business records, the authenticity of membership and transportation credentials, and the sanctity of legal proceedings by criminalizing various forms of falsification and evidence tampering when done with the requisite intent or knowledge.
Minnesota law defines the crime of Forgery under Minnesota Statutes § 609.63. This statute outlines numerous prohibited acts related to falsification and evidence tampering, generally requiring an intent to injure or defraud, or specific knowledge. It also details the penalties, including potentially higher penalties for offering forged evidence in a felony trial.
609.63 FORGERY.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined; intent to defraud. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of forgery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both:
(1) uses a false writing, knowing it to be false, for the purpose of identification or recommendation; or
(2) without consent, places, or possesses with intent to place, upon any merchandise an identifying label or stamp which is or purports to be that of another craftsperson, tradesperson, packer, or manufacturer, or disposes or possesses with intent to dispose of any merchandise so labeled or stamped; or
(3) falsely makes or alters a membership card purporting to be that of a fraternal, business, professional, or other association, or of any labor union, or possesses any such card knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered; or
(4) falsely makes or alters a writing, or possesses a falsely made or altered writing, evidencing a right to transportation on a common carrier; or
(5) destroys, mutilates, or by alteration, false entry or omission, falsifies any record, account, or other document relating to a private business; or
(6) without authority of law, destroys, mutilates, or by alteration, false entry, or omission, falsifies any record, account, or other document relating to a person, corporation, or business, or filed in the office of, or deposited with, any public office or officer; or
(7) destroys a writing or object to prevent it from being produced at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding authorized by law.
Subd. 2. Crime defined; forged document at trial. Whoever, with knowledge that it is forged, offers in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceedings authorized by law, as genuine, any forged writing or object may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the writing or object is offered in evidence in the trial of a felony charge, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both; or
(2) in all other cases, to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
To secure a conviction for Forgery under Minnesota Statutes § 609.63, the prosecution must prove certain specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The required elements vary depending on which subdivision and clause the defendant is charged under, as the statute covers a diverse range of conduct. Generally, most offenses under Subdivision 1 require proof of an “intent to injure or defraud,” while some clauses within Subdivision 1 and the offense under Subdivision 2 require proof of “knowledge.” Additionally, the specific prohibited act must be established. Failure to prove any essential element for the specific charge prevents a lawful conviction.
The penalties for Forgery under Minnesota Statutes § 609.63 vary depending on the specific conduct involved, particularly whether the forgery relates to offering false evidence in a legal proceeding. The statute sets out two main penalty structures. Most forgery acts listed under Subdivision 1 carry one level of felony penalty, while offering forged evidence under Subdivision 2 can carry either the same penalty or a higher one if done during a felony trial.
For convictions under any clause of Subdivision 1 (using false ID, false labels, false membership cards, false transport docs, falsifying business/public records, destroying evidence) or for offering forged evidence in any proceeding other than the trial of a felony charge (Subd. 2(2)), the potential penalties are:
If the forgery involves offering a known forged writing or object as genuine evidence specifically during the trial of a felony charge (Subd. 2(1)), the potential penalties are elevated:
As with other felonies, a conviction also results in a criminal record and potential collateral consequences, including restitution orders.
Forgery, as defined by Minnesota Statute § 609.63, covers a wider, perhaps less intuitively obvious, range of activities than just faking a signature on a check (which is covered elsewhere). This statute addresses acts like using a fake ID, putting fake brand labels on merchandise, falsifying business records to cover up theft, altering public documents, or even destroying something to keep it out of court. It also includes the very serious act of trying to trick a court by submitting fake evidence. The common theme is deception or interference with authenticity or legal process, usually driven by an intent to injure someone or gain an unfair advantage.
The law aims to protect trust in various areas: personal identification, consumer goods, organizational memberships, public transportation, business integrity, government records, and the justice system itself. While perhaps not involving the high-value documents seen in Aggravated Forgery, the acts prohibited under § 609.63 can still cause significant harm or disruption. Understanding that forgery extends beyond just signing someone else’s name to include acts like falsifying records or destroying evidence is key to grasping the scope of this law. These examples illustrate some of the diverse ways forgery under § 609.63 can occur.
An individual applies for a job that requires specific professional certifications. Lacking the real credentials, they create a false certificate or letter of recommendation using the name and purported signature of a respected professional in the field, knowing it to be false. They submit this false writing to the potential employer for the purpose of recommendation to secure the job.
This falls under § 609.63, Subd. 1(1). The individual used a false writing (the certificate or letter), knowing it was false, for the purpose of recommendation. Even though no direct financial fraud might occur initially, the intent is to fraudulently obtain employment by misrepresenting qualifications, thus injuring other applicants or the employer.
A person imports generic, unbranded electronic accessories and then, without consent from the actual brand owner, attaches labels that mimic a well-known, expensive brand’s logo and identifying marks. They possess these falsely labeled items with the intent to sell them to consumers, passing them off as genuine branded products at a higher price.
This conduct violates § 609.63, Subd. 1(2). The person, without consent, placed upon merchandise an identifying label purporting to be that of another manufacturer. They also possessed the falsely labeled merchandise with intent to dispose of it (sell it). The intent is clearly to defraud consumers and injure the legitimate brand owner.
An employee responsible for managing payroll records for a small business regularly adds extra hours to their own timesheet or inflates the hours worked by a friend, causing the business to overpay them. They do this by making false entries into the company’s payroll accounts or documents.
This constitutes forgery under § 609.63, Subd. 1(5). The employee, with intent to defraud the business, falsified a record, account, or other document (the payroll records/timesheets) relating to a private business by alteration or false entry. The aim is to illicitly obtain funds from the employer.
A person anticipates being sued and knows certain emails and financial records in their possession could be damaging to their case. Before receiving a formal subpoena but knowing a proceeding is likely, they intentionally delete the emails permanently and shred the financial records specifically to prevent them from being produced as evidence in the anticipated deposition or trial.
This act violates § 609.63, Subd. 1(7). The individual destroyed writings or objects (emails, records) with the intent to prevent them from being produced at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding authorized by law. The intent is to obstruct the legal process by eliminating relevant evidence.
Facing forgery charges under Minnesota Statutes § 609.63 can lead to serious felony consequences, including potential prison time, fines, and a lasting criminal record. However, an accusation is merely the start of the legal process, and the prosecution must prove every element of the specific forgery offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Various defenses may be available, often focusing on negating the required mental state (intent to injure/defraud or knowledge of falsity) or challenging whether the defendant’s actions actually fit the specific conduct prohibited by the relevant clause of the statute. Because § 609.63 covers a diverse array of acts, the applicable defenses can vary significantly depending on the specifics of the allegation.
A thorough defense requires carefully examining the evidence, understanding the precise legal definitions within § 609.63, and identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Did the defendant truly intend to defraud anyone? Did they actually know the ID or membership card was false? Was the record alteration a mistake rather than intentional falsification? Did they have authority for their actions? An attorney experienced in defending against Minnesota forgery charges can analyze the unique facts, pinpoint the most viable defense strategies, and work to protect the defendant’s rights throughout the proceedings.
For most offenses under § 609.63, Subd. 1, the prosecution must prove the defendant acted with intent to injure or defraud. This defense argues that such intent was absent, even if the defendant committed the act (e.g., altering a record, using a label).
For using false ID/recommendation (Subd. 1(1)), possessing false membership cards (Subd. 1(3)), or offering forged evidence (Subd. 2), the prosecution must prove the defendant knew the item was false or forged. This defense asserts the defendant lacked this required knowledge.
Certain acts under § 609.63 involve acting without consent or authority (e.g., placing labels under Subd. 1(2), falsifying public records under Subd. 1(6)). This defense argues the defendant had the necessary permission or legal authority for their actions.
This defense argues that the defendant’s specific conduct or the item involved does not actually fit the definition within the clause of § 609.63 under which they are charged. The statute lists specific types of acts and items.
Aggravated Forgery (§ 609.625) typically involves forging documents or objects with greater legal or official significance (like deeds, court orders, official seals) and carries higher potential penalties (up to 10 years). Forgery (§ 609.63) covers a broader range of less critical items (like IDs, labels, membership cards, business records, transportation passes) or specific acts like destroying evidence or offering forged evidence in court, generally with lower penalties (up to 3 or 5 years).
Possibly, but context matters. If done with your friend’s permission (authority), it’s likely not forgery. If done without permission and with an intent to injure or defraud (e.g., to deceive the school for some unfair advantage), it could potentially fit, although prosecution for minor instances is less common. Intent is key.
Possessing a falsely made or altered membership card (Subd. 1(3)) or transportation pass (Subd. 1(4)) requires knowledge of its falsity. Possessing a fake ID isn’t explicitly listed as mere possession under Subd. 1, but using it knowing it’s false (Subd. 1(1)) is illegal. Mere passive possession of a found fake ID, without using it or intending to use it fraudulently, might not violate this specific statute, but could raise other issues.
Yes, under § 609.63, Subd. 1(5), intentionally falsifying any record, account, or document relating to a private business by alteration, false entry, or omission, with intent to injure or defraud (e.g., to embezzle money or hide losses), constitutes forgery.
It can be, under § 609.63, Subd. 1(7). If you destroy any writing or object (even your own records) specifically to prevent it from being produced as evidence in a trial, hearing, or other legal proceeding authorized by law, with the intent to obstruct that proceeding, it constitutes forgery.
This typically includes court trials (criminal or civil), administrative hearings, depositions, arbitrations, grand jury proceedings, and potentially other formal processes where evidence is legally authorized to be presented.
Offering known forged evidence in small claims court (which is not a trial of a felony charge) would fall under § 609.63, Subd. 2(2), carrying a potential penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or both.
The standard for most acts under Subd. 1 is “intent to injure or defraud.” “Defraud” means to cheat or deceive, often for gain. Even if you didn’t intend significant harm, if you intended to deceive someone to gain an advantage you weren’t entitled to, that could potentially meet the “intent to defraud” element.
Generally no, not under this statute. Section 609.63 deals with specific types of writings, objects, records, and evidence. Creating a fake online profile typically doesn’t involve the types of items or acts covered by this forgery law, although it could potentially lead to other charges like identity theft depending on the actions taken.
Possessing merchandise with a false label purporting to be that of another manufacturer, with intent to dispose of it (sell it), falls under § 609.63, Subd. 1(2). So, possessing counterfeit goods with the intent to sell them could lead to forgery charges under this clause. Mere possession for personal use might be harder to prosecute under this specific clause, which includes “intent to dispose.”
Using someone else’s genuine ID might not be “using a false writing” under § 609.63, Subd. 1(1). However, it could potentially lead to other charges, such as identity theft or misrepresentation, depending on the circumstances and intent.
No. For most forgery offenses, the crime is complete when the act (making, altering, possessing with intent, using, offering, destroying) is done with the required intent or knowledge. The prosecution generally does not need to prove that someone was actually deceived or that any loss occurred.
Yes, § 609.63, Subd. 1(6) covers falsifying any record, account, or document filed in the office of, or deposited with, any public office or officer, without authority of law. This could potentially include electronic records filed online if done by alteration, false entry, or omission with intent to injure or defraud.
Yes, Minnesota has statutes of limitations for criminal offenses. For most felonies, including forgery under § 609.63, the general statute of limitations is three years from the date the offense was committed. However, specific circumstances can sometimes extend this period.
Yes, the statute explicitly states that the sentence for forgery under § 609.63 can be imprisonment, payment of a fine, or both. The judge has the discretion to impose either or both penalties within the maximum limits set by the statute.
A conviction for Forgery under Minnesota Statutes § 609.63, even though potentially carrying lesser maximum penalties than Aggravated Forgery, still results in a felony record (unless reduced by negotiation or sentencing) and significant long-term consequences. This type of conviction inherently involves dishonesty, deceit, or interference with legal processes, creating a lasting stigma that can impede various aspects of life long after the sentence is completed. These collateral consequences often present substantial hurdles to employment, housing, financial stability, and the exercise of certain rights.
Understanding these enduring impacts is crucial for anyone facing forgery charges. The conviction becomes a permanent part of one’s background, accessible through checks by employers, landlords, and licensing bodies. It’s not merely a past event but an ongoing characteristic that can shape future opportunities and perceptions. Recognizing the potential for these lifelong difficulties underscores the importance of addressing § 609.63 charges with a serious and comprehensive defense strategy.
A forgery conviction under § 609.63 can severely limit job prospects. Employers conducting background checks often view forgery, as a crime of dishonesty, with significant concern. This is especially true for positions requiring trust, handling money or sensitive information, working with vulnerable populations, or holding positions of authority. Industries like finance, education, healthcare, government, and retail (especially regarding merchandise labeling forgery) may be particularly difficult to enter or remain in. The conviction can lead to job application rejections, loss of current employment, and difficulty obtaining promotions or advancing professionally, potentially resulting in long-term underemployment and reduced earning potential.
The specific type of forgery can also matter; for example, falsifying business records (Subd. 1(5)) might be particularly damaging for accounting or management roles, while using false ID (Subd. 1(1)) could impact jobs requiring verification.
Individuals holding or seeking professional licenses (e.g., teachers, nurses, accountants, real estate agents, security guards, lawyers) face significant risk from a forgery conviction. State licensing boards have strict standards regarding ethical conduct and criminal history. A conviction for forgery, demonstrating dishonesty or fraud, can be grounds for denying a license application, suspending an existing license, or permanently revoking the right to practice in that profession. Losing a professional license often means the end of a career path that required substantial education, training, and investment, leading to profound personal and financial consequences. Even if a license isn’t revoked, disciplinary actions can tarnish one’s professional reputation.
A forgery conviction can negatively impact financial stability. Beyond potential fines and restitution orders, the conviction itself can damage creditworthiness. Lenders may be hesitant to approve loans or credit cards, or may offer them only at higher interest rates, viewing the applicant as a higher risk due to the history of dishonesty. This can make it harder to finance major purchases like a car or home. Similarly, landlords often deny rental applications based on felony convictions involving dishonesty or fraud, making it difficult to secure stable housing. These financial and housing barriers can create ongoing stress and instability, hindering efforts to rebuild one’s life after the conviction.
As a felony, a conviction under § 609.63 results in the loss of certain civil rights in Minnesota. This includes the right to possess firearms and ammunition (often a lifetime ban unless rights are restored), the right to vote while incarcerated or under supervision, and the ability to serve on a jury. Furthermore, a forgery conviction can have serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, potentially leading to deportation or denial of visas or citizenship, as it may be considered a crime involving moral turpitude. The conviction can also impact eligibility for certain government benefits or participation in some volunteer activities, further limiting opportunities and civic engagement.
Forgery under § 609.63 is not a single act but a collection of distinct offenses outlined in its various clauses and subdivisions. A crucial first step for a defense attorney is to precisely identify which specific clause(s) the prosecution is charging and meticulously analyze the corresponding elements. Is the charge based on using a false ID under Subd. 1(1), falsifying business records under Subd. 1(5), destroying evidence under Subd. 1(7), or offering forged evidence under Subd. 2? Each carries unique requirements regarding the act itself and the necessary mental state (intent to injure/defraud vs. knowledge). An attorney must dissect the specific allegations, compare them against the exact statutory language, and determine if the prosecution’s evidence truly aligns with all required elements for that particular clause, identifying any mismatches or deficiencies.
Given that most forgery offenses under § 609.63 require either “intent to injure or defraud” or “knowledge” of falsity/forgery, challenging the prosecution’s proof of the defendant’s mental state is paramount. An experienced attorney understands how to build defenses around these elements. They will investigate the defendant’s perspective, motivations, and understanding of the situation. Was the act a mistake? Was there a lack of intent to actually deceive or harm anyone? Was the defendant unaware the document used for ID was fake? Did they genuinely believe the evidence offered in court was authentic? The attorney gathers evidence – testimony, communications, contextual information – to support claims of accident, lack of deceptive purpose, or lack of knowledge, aiming to create reasonable doubt about this critical component of the crime.
Beyond the mental state, the defense must investigate the factual basis of the charge. Did the defendant actually commit the alleged act? Was the label truly false or unauthorized? Was the record alteration material or merely corrective? Was the document actually destroyed to prevent its production in a legal proceeding, or for other reasons? In cases involving alleged lack of consent or authority (like Subd. 1(2) or 1(6)), the attorney investigates whether the defendant did, in fact, have permission or legal justification for their actions. This involves gathering evidence of consent, exploring the scope of the defendant’s authority in their job or role, and potentially challenging the prosecution’s interpretation of the facts surrounding the alleged act itself.
A forgery conviction, even under § 609.63, is a serious felony. An attorney’s role includes exploring all avenues for a favorable resolution while preparing a strong trial defense. This involves negotiating with the prosecutor, potentially seeking dismissal, reduced charges (perhaps to a misdemeanor if circumstances warrant), or alternative dispositions like a stay of adjudication that could avoid a felony conviction appearing on the public record. The attorney leverages weaknesses in the state’s case regarding intent, knowledge, or the specific act during these negotiations. If the case proceeds to trial, the attorney must effectively cross-examine witnesses, present defense evidence, challenge the admissibility of prosecution evidence, and argue persuasively to the judge or jury that the state has failed to meet its high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every essential element of the specific forgery charge.
