of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Writing a check that bounces can lead to more than just bank fees and embarrassment; under certain circumstances in Minnesota, it can result in criminal charges. Minnesota Statute § 609.535 addresses the crime of issuing a dishonored check, commonly referred to as writing a bad check. This offense occurs not merely when a check is returned for insufficient funds, but specifically when the person issuing the check does so with the intent that the check will not be paid by the bank or financial institution (the drawee). It targets deceptive conduct where the issuer knows, or should reasonably know, at the moment they write the check, that there are insufficient funds or credit available to cover it, and they do not expect it to be honored upon presentation. The law aims to protect businesses and individuals who accept checks as payment in good faith.
The severity of the charge under § 609.535 depends primarily on the value of the dishonored check, or the aggregated value of multiple bad checks issued within a six-month period. Penalties can range from a misdemeanor for smaller amounts to a felony for checks exceeding $500, potentially involving significant fines and even imprisonment. The statute outlines specific circumstances that can be used as evidence to prove the issuer’s intent, such as not having an account, having insufficient funds and failing to pay after receiving notice, or refusing notice. Understanding the nuances of this law, particularly the element of intent and the procedures for notice and proof, is crucial for anyone facing allegations of issuing a dishonored check in Minnesota.
Minnesota Statute § 609.535 defines the crime of issuing a dishonored check, focusing on the issuer’s intent at the time of issuance. It establishes penalties based on the check’s value, outlines methods for proving intent (including failure to pay after notice), details exceptions, and governs the release of account information for investigation and prosecution purposes.
609.535 ISSUANCE OF DISHONORED CHECKS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.
(a) “Check” means a check, draft, order of withdrawal, or similar negotiable or nonnegotiable instrument.
(b) “Credit” means an arrangement or understanding with the drawee for the payment of a check.
Subd. 2. Acts constituting. Whoever issues a check which, at the time of issuance, the issuer intends shall not be paid, is guilty of issuing a dishonored check and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2a. In addition, restitution may be ordered by the court.
Subd. 2a. Penalties. (a) A person who is convicted of issuing a dishonored check under subdivision 2 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the value of the dishonored check, or checks aggregated under paragraph (b), is more than $500;
(2) to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if the value of the dishonored check, or checks aggregated under paragraph (b), is more than $250 but not more than $500; or
(3) to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, if the value of the dishonored check, or checks aggregated under paragraph (b), is not more than $250.
(b) In a prosecution under this subdivision, the value of dishonored checks issued by the defendant in violation of this subdivision within any six-month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying this section. When two or more offenses are committed by the same person in two or more counties, the accused may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the dishonored checks was issued for all of the offenses aggregated under this paragraph.
Subd. 3. Proof of intent. Any of the following is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the person at the time the person issued the check intended it should not be paid:
(1) proof that, at the time of issuance, the issuer did not have an account with the drawee;
(2) proof that, at the time of issuance, the issuer did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee and that the issuer failed to pay the check within five business days after mailing of notice of nonpayment or dishonor as provided in this subdivision; or
(3) proof that, when presentment was made within a reasonable time, the issuer did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee and that the issuer failed to pay the check within five business days after mailing of notice of nonpayment or dishonor as provided in this subdivision.
Notice of nonpayment or dishonor that includes a citation to and a description of the penalties in this section shall be sent by the payee or holder of the check to the maker or drawer by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by regular mail, supported by an affidavit of service by mailing, to the address printed on the check. Refusal by the maker or drawer of the check to accept certified mail notice or failure to claim certified or regular mail notice is not a defense that notice was not received.
The notice may state that unless the check is paid in full within five business days after mailing of the notice of nonpayment or dishonor, the payee or holder of the check will or may refer the matter to proper authorities for prosecution under this section.
An affidavit of service by mailing shall be retained by the payee or holder of the check.
Subd. 4. Proof of lack of funds or credit. If the check has been protested, the notice of protest is admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment, and protest, and is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that there was a lack of funds or credit with the drawee.
Subd. 5. Exceptions. This section does not apply to a postdated check or to a check given for a past consideration, except a payroll check or a check issued to a fund for employee benefits.
Subd. 6. Release of account information to law enforcement authorities. A drawee shall release the information specified below to any state, county, or local law enforcement or prosecuting authority which certifies in writing that it is investigating or prosecuting a complaint against the drawer under this section or section 609.52, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (3), item (i), and that 15 days have elapsed since the mailing of the notice of dishonor required by subdivisions 3 and 8. This subdivision applies to the following information relating to the drawer’s account: [details omitted for brevity – account opening/closing docs, NSF notices, statements, address/phone]
The drawee shall release all of the information described in clauses (1) to (4) that it possesses within ten days after receipt of a request conforming to all of the provisions of this subdivision. The drawee may not impose a fee for furnishing this information to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
A drawee is not liable in a criminal or civil proceeding for releasing information in accordance with this subdivision.
Subd. 7. Release of account information to payee or holder. (a) A drawee shall release the information specified in paragraph (b), clauses (1) to (3) to the payee or holder of a check that has been dishonored who makes a written request for this information and states in writing that the check has been dishonored and that 30 days have elapsed since the mailing of the notice described in subdivision 8 and who accompanies this request with a copy of the dishonored check and a copy of the notice of dishonor. [details omitted for brevity – payee must notify drawee if paid]
(b) This subdivision applies to the following information relating to the drawer’s account: [details omitted for brevity – sufficient funds status, account status, last known home address/phone, whether aggregated value exceeds $250]
The drawee shall release all of the information described in clauses (1) to (3) that it possesses within ten days after receipt of a request conforming to all of the provisions of this subdivision. The drawee may require the person requesting the information to pay the reasonable costs, not to exceed 15 cents per page, of reproducing and mailing the requested information.
(c) A drawee is not liable in a criminal or civil proceeding for releasing information in accordance with this subdivision.
Subd. 8. Notice. The provisions of subdivisions 6 and 7 are not applicable unless the notice to the maker or drawer required by subdivision 3 states that if the check is not paid in full within five business days after mailing of the notice, the drawee will be authorized to release information relating to the account to the payee or holder of the check and may also release this information to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
To secure a conviction for issuing a dishonored check under Minnesota Statute § 609.535, the prosecution must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply showing that a check bounced is insufficient for criminal liability under this statute. The critical factor distinguishing this crime from a mere civil debt or banking error is the issuer’s state of mind – their intent – at the precise moment the check was issued. The prosecution focuses on demonstrating that the issuer knew the check would likely not be honored and intended for it not to be paid.
The core elements the state must establish are:
The criminal penalties for issuing a dishonored check in Minnesota vary significantly based on the monetary value of the check or checks involved. Minnesota Statute § 609.535, subdivision 2a establishes a tiered penalty structure, treating offenses involving larger amounts more severely. Importantly, the law allows the prosecution to aggregate the value of multiple dishonored checks issued by the same person within a six-month period to potentially reach a higher penalty threshold. In addition to potential fines and imprisonment, the court may also order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim(s) for the amount of the bad check(s).
The specific penalties depend on the value of the dishonored check(s):
The aggregation provision (Subd. 2a(b)) means that several small bad checks written over several months could collectively lead to a gross misdemeanor or even a felony charge if their total value exceeds the thresholds.
The crime of issuing a dishonored check under § 609.535 hinges on intent. It’s not simply about a check bouncing because someone made a mistake balancing their checkbook or had an unexpected automatic withdrawal. The law targets situations where the person writing the check knows it’s bad when they hand it over. Think of someone writing a check from an account they closed last month, or someone writing a large check knowing they only have a few dollars in the account and having no arrangement with the bank to cover it (no credit line or overdraft protection).
The statute provides specific ways for the prosecution to demonstrate this required intent. If someone writes a check knowing they don’t have funds, and then they receive a formal notice by mail from the payee demanding payment within five business days but still fail to pay, the law allows a court to infer they intended the check not to be paid from the beginning. Refusing to accept the certified mail notice doesn’t help; it’s still considered valid notice. Similarly, writing a check on an account that doesn’t exist is strong evidence of intent not to pay. The penalties escalate based on the check amount, and multiple bad checks within six months can be added together to potentially reach felony level charges.
Sarah closed her checking account at Bank A last month. Knowing the account is closed, she writes a check for $600 drawn on that closed Bank A account to pay for merchandise at a local store. The store deposits the check, and it is returned stamped “Account Closed.” The store sends Sarah a notice of dishonor via certified mail to the address on the check, demanding payment within five business days and citing the statute. Sarah refuses to accept the certified mail.
This scenario likely constitutes felony Issuance of Dishonored Checks. Sarah issued a check for over $500. Proof that she did not have an account with Bank A at the time of issuance is sufficient evidence under Subd. 3(1) to sustain a finding that she intended the check not be paid. Her refusal to accept the notice is not a defense. She faces potential penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine, plus restitution.
John writes a check for $350 to his landlord for rent on the 1st of the month. At that time, he knows he only has $50 in his account and no overdraft protection or credit arrangement. The check is presented and returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). The landlord sends John the proper statutory notice via certified mail on the 10th, demanding payment within five business days. John receives the notice on the 12th but fails to pay the $350 by the 19th (five business days after mailing).
This scenario likely constitutes gross misdemeanor Issuance of Dishonored Checks. John issued a check for between $250 and $500. Proof that he had insufficient funds at the time of issuance (or presentment) and failed to pay within five business days of the mailed notice is sufficient evidence under Subd. 3(2) or (3) to sustain a finding of intent. He faces potential penalties of up to 364 days in jail and/or a $3,000 fine, plus restitution.
Over a three-month period, David writes three separate checks to different businesses, each for $100, knowing he lacks sufficient funds. All three checks bounce. Each business sends him the proper statutory notice, and he fails to pay any of them within the five-business-day window after notice mailing.
Although each check individually is under the $250 misdemeanor threshold, the prosecution can aggregate their values under Subd. 2a(b) because they were issued within a six-month period. The aggregated value is $300. This allows the prosecution to charge David with a single count of gross misdemeanor Issuance of Dishonored Checks (value over $250 but not more than $500), carrying potential penalties of up to 364 days in jail and/or a $3,000 fine, plus restitution for all three checks.
Maria needs car repairs but won’t get paid until Friday. On Tuesday, she gives the mechanic a check for $400 but dates it for Friday (three days later), explaining she needs them to hold it until then. The mechanic agrees. However, on Friday, Maria still lacks sufficient funds, and the check bounces when the mechanic deposits it. The mechanic sends the statutory notice, and Maria fails to pay within five business days.
Despite the check bouncing and Maria failing to pay after notice, this scenario likely does not constitute a crime under § 609.535. Subdivision 5 explicitly states the section does not apply to postdated checks (unless it’s a payroll or employee benefit fund check). Because Maria and the mechanic had an understanding the check was postdated and should be held, the criminal statute requiring intent at the time of issuance does not apply, even if Maria later failed to ensure funds were available. The mechanic’s recourse would likely be civil.
Being charged with issuing a dishonored check under § 609.535 can be alarming, potentially leading to a criminal record, fines, and even jail time. However, an accusation is not a conviction, and several defenses may be available depending on the specific circumstances surrounding the issuance of the check. Because the core of the offense is the intent that the check not be paid at the time it was written, many defenses focus on negating this specific intent or demonstrating that the situation falls under one of the statute’s exceptions. Simply proving the check bounced is not enough for the prosecution to secure a conviction.
Successfully defending against a bad check charge often involves carefully examining the timeline of events, the defendant’s financial situation and knowledge at the time the check was issued, the actions taken by the payee regarding notice, and whether any statutory exceptions apply. Presenting evidence that contradicts the inference of intent – such as proof of a reasonable expectation of funds, a genuine mistake, or prompt payment after notice – can be crucial. An attorney can help analyze the evidence, identify the strongest defenses, and navigate the legal process to challenge the prosecution’s case.
The cornerstone of the offense is the intent, at the time of issuance, that the check not be paid. If this specific intent was absent, there is no crime under this statute.
Subdivision 3 allows an inference of intent if the issuer had insufficient funds and failed to pay within five business days after proper notice was mailed. Conversely, paying within that window negates this inference.
The statute explicitly exempts certain types of checks from criminal prosecution under § 609.535.
Sometimes, account problems leading to a dishonored check are not the issuer’s fault or do not reflect an intent not to pay.
No. Bouncing a check is only a crime under § 609.535 if you issue the check intending at that moment that it will not be paid (e.g., knowing you have insufficient funds and failing to pay after notice, or writing it on a closed account). Honest mistakes or unexpected shortages generally aren’t criminal under this statute, though civil liability may still exist.
A civil case is typically brought by the payee (the person or business who received the bad check) to recover the amount of the check plus potential fees and penalties. A criminal case is brought by the state (prosecutor) and requires proving criminal intent (intent not to pay at issuance) beyond a reasonable doubt, potentially resulting in fines, jail time, restitution, and a criminal record.
Direct proof of intent is hard. The statute (§ 609.535, Subd. 3) allows intent to be inferred if the prosecution proves certain facts: (1) you didn’t have an account at the time, OR (2) you had insufficient funds/credit and failed to pay the check within 5 business days after the payee mailed a proper notice of dishonor.
Subdivision 3 requires the notice to include a citation to § 609.535 and a description of the criminal penalties. It must be sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) or regular mail supported by an affidavit of service, to the address on the check. Subdivision 8 adds that the notice must also state that failure to pay within 5 business days authorizes the bank to release account information.
Refusing certified mail or failing to claim certified or regular mail notice is not a defense against receiving notice under Subdivision 3. The law considers the notice properly sent if mailed according to the statute.
You have five business days after the notice was mailed (not received) to pay the check in full to avoid the statutory inference of intent based on non-payment after notice.
Penalties depend on the check value (or aggregated value within 6 months):
Subdivision 2a(b) allows the prosecutor to add up the values of all dishonored checks you issued in violation of the statute within any six-month period. This total value is used to determine the charge level (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony). Several small checks can lead to serious charges.
Generally, no. Subdivision 5 exempts postdated checks from this criminal statute, presumably because the payee accepts it knowing funds aren’t currently available. Exceptions exist for payroll checks and employee benefit fund checks.
Generally, no. Subdivision 5 also exempts checks given for “past consideration” (an old debt), except for payroll or employee benefit fund checks. The law primarily targets checks written in immediate exchange for goods or services.
Yes, under specific conditions. If the proper notice (including the warning required by Subd. 8) is sent and the check isn’t paid within 5 business days, the bank (drawee) must release certain account information to law enforcement upon request (Subd. 6) and may release certain information to the payee/holder upon request after 30 days (Subd. 7).
To law enforcement (Subd. 6): account opening/closing docs, NSF/overdraft notices, periodic statements, last known address/phone. To the payee/holder (Subd. 7): sufficient funds status at issuance/presentment, account status, last known home address/phone (not work, usually), and whether aggregated dishonored checks exceed $250 in a 6-month period.
Making payment arrangements after the 5-business-day window following the notice might not prevent criminal charges if the prosecutor believes intent existed at issuance. However, full payment or active repayment might influence the prosecutor’s decision or lead to a more favorable outcome (like diversion or dismissal). Paying within the 5-day window is the strongest way to negate the statutory inference of intent.
Yes. Depending on the value of the check(s), a conviction under § 609.535 can lead to jail time, ranging from up to 90 days for a misdemeanor to up to 5 years for a felony.
Yes, absolutely. An attorney can analyze the specific facts, determine if the state can prove the crucial element of intent, identify applicable defenses (like lack of intent, payment after notice, statutory exceptions), challenge procedural errors (like improper notice), negotiate with the prosecutor, and defend your rights in court to avoid a criminal conviction and its serious consequences.
A conviction for issuing a dishonored check under Minnesota Statute § 609.535, even for a misdemeanor amount, is a criminal offense that results in a permanent criminal record. While it might seem less severe than other crimes, this conviction can create significant and lasting obstacles in various aspects of an individual’s life, particularly concerning finances, employment, and housing. These collateral consequences often extend far beyond any court-imposed fines or jail time.
Any conviction under § 609.535, whether misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony, becomes part of the individual’s public criminal record. This record will appear on background checks conducted by potential employers, landlords, licensing boards, and volunteer organizations. Because issuing a dishonored check often involves elements of deception or financial irresponsibility, it can be viewed very negatively, particularly for positions involving handling money, trust, or financial management. This can lead to automatic disqualification or significantly reduced opportunities long after the case is closed. Even a misdemeanor conviction can create persistent barriers.
A conviction for writing bad checks sends a major red flag to financial institutions. Banks and credit unions may become unwilling to open checking accounts for individuals with such convictions, making basic financial management extremely difficult (e.g., cashing paychecks, paying bills electronically). Obtaining credit cards, loans (car loans, mortgages), or favorable interest rates can also become much harder. The conviction signals financial instability and potential risk to lenders, severely impacting creditworthiness and access to essential financial services for years to come. Rebuilding trust with financial institutions after such a conviction is a significant challenge.
Separate from the criminal case, the person or business who received the dishonored check (the payee) can pursue civil remedies to recover the amount owed, plus statutory penalties, fees, and interest. A criminal conviction can strengthen the payee’s civil case. If the individual is unable to pay, the payee may obtain a civil judgment, which further damages credit and can lead to wage garnishment, bank levies, or liens on property. Dealing with collection agencies and potential civil lawsuits adds another layer of financial stress and legal complexity on top of the criminal conviction.
As mentioned, the criminal record resulting from a § 609.535 conviction poses significant hurdles for employment, especially in retail, finance, accounting, or any role requiring fiduciary responsibility. Landlords also frequently run background checks and may deny rental applications based on convictions related to financial dishonesty, viewing the applicant as a potential risk for non-payment of rent. These combined difficulties in securing stable employment and housing can create a cycle of instability, making it harder for individuals to move forward positively after resolving the criminal case.
The defining element of a criminal dishonored check charge under § 609.535 is the issuer’s intent at the time of issuance that the check not be paid. An attorney’s primary role is to meticulously analyze the prosecution’s evidence regarding this subjective intent. They understand that the state often relies on statutory inferences (Subd. 3 – no account, or NSF plus failure to pay after notice) rather than direct proof. The attorney investigates the circumstances surrounding the check’s issuance – the client’s financial knowledge at that exact moment, any reasonable expectation of incoming funds, potential bank errors, or simple mistakes – to build a case demonstrating that the requisite criminal intent was absent. They challenge the state’s reliance on inferences by presenting evidence that contradicts them.
The statute sets forth very specific procedures for the notice of dishonor that the payee must send before the failure to pay can be used as sufficient evidence of intent (Subd. 3 and Subd. 8). An attorney carefully reviews the notice sent to their client (if any) to ensure it fully complies with all statutory requirements: proper mailing method (certified or regular with affidavit), inclusion of statutory citation and penalty descriptions, and the necessary warning about releasing account information. If the notice is procedurally defective in any way, or if it wasn’t sent correctly, the attorney can argue that the state cannot legally rely on the client’s failure to pay after receiving that notice as evidence of intent, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.
Beyond challenging intent, an attorney identifies and asserts any applicable statutory defenses or exceptions. They determine if the check falls under the exceptions for postdated checks or checks for past consideration (Subd. 5), gathering evidence to support these claims (e.g., the check itself showing a future date, testimony about agreements to hold the check, proof the check was for an old debt). They also utilize the “payment after notice” mechanism as a defense, advising the client on the importance of paying within the five-business-day window if feasible and documenting that payment meticulously to present to the prosecutor or the court as proof negating the inference of criminal intent.
Facing a dishonored check charge, even a misdemeanor, can have lasting consequences. An attorney works proactively to negotiate with the prosecuting authority for the best possible outcome. This might involve seeking dismissal if the evidence of intent is weak or defenses are strong. Alternatively, they might negotiate for entry into a diversion program, where successful completion results in dismissal and avoids a criminal conviction. If conviction seems likely, the attorney negotiates for reduced charges (e.g., avoiding aggregation, pleading to a lesser offense) or advocates for minimal penalties, emphasizing mitigating factors and arranging restitution payments. Their goal is always to minimize the long-term damage to the client’s record and financial future.
