of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Checks, despite the rise of electronic payments, remain a common financial instrument, making them targets for theft and counterfeiting. Possessing or trafficking in stolen or fake checks facilitates various forms of fraud and financial crime, harming both the individuals whose accounts or identities are compromised (direct victims) and the businesses or financial institutions that suffer losses (indirect victims). Minnesota law specifically addresses this issue through Statute § 609.528, which criminalizes the act of selling, possessing, receiving, or transferring a check that is known, or reasonably should be known, to be stolen or counterfeit. This statute targets the handling and distribution of these fraudulent instruments.
Unlike the crime of actually forging a check (§ 609.631) or passing a bad check (§ 609.52, subd. 2(a)(3)(i)), § 609.528 focuses on the intermediate steps involving the illicit checks themselves. It criminalizes being part of the chain of possession or distribution when one knows or should recognize the check’s fraudulent nature. The law aims to disrupt the flow of these instruments, holding accountable those who knowingly or negligently deal in stolen or fake checks, thereby enabling further financial crimes. Penalties are structured similarly to Minnesota’s general theft statute, primarily based on the number of direct victims or the total financial loss caused.
Possession or Sale of Stolen or Counterfeit Check, as defined under Minnesota Statute § 609.528, is a crime focused on the wrongful handling of checks known to be illicit. The offense occurs when a person sells, possesses (has control over), receives (accepts from another), or transfers (gives to another) a check that is either stolen from its rightful owner or is counterfeit (fake or forged). A crucial component of the crime is the person’s mental state: they must either know for a fact that the check is stolen or counterfeit, or they must have sufficient reason to know, based on the circumstances, that the check is illicit.
This statute targets individuals who traffic in or hold onto these fraudulent financial instruments, recognizing that such actions are often precursors to attempting to cash or deposit the checks, or using them to commit other forms of theft or fraud. It differs from forgery or uttering a forged instrument by focusing on the mere possession, sale, receipt, or transfer with guilty knowledge. The law aims to intercept these bad checks before they cause further harm, penalizing those who knowingly participate in the chain of handling stolen or fake checks, thereby facilitating financial crime. The severity of the offense is tied to the resulting loss or the number of victims affected.
The specific crime addressing the handling of stolen or counterfeit checks is codified under Minnesota Statutes § 609.528. This section provides definitions for victims and loss, describes the prohibited acts, establishes the required knowledge standard, and outlines the penalties, linking them to the state’s general theft statute based on loss or number of victims.
The law states:
609.528 POSSESSION OR SALE OF STOLEN OR COUNTERFEIT CHECK; PENALTIES.
Subdivision 1. Definition. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given them in this subdivision.
(b) “Direct victim” means any person or entity described in section 611A.01, paragraph (b), from whom a check is stolen or whose name or other identifying information is contained in a counterfeit check.
(c) “Indirect victim” means any person or entity described in section 611A.01, paragraph (b), other than a direct victim.
(d) “Loss” means value obtained, as defined in section 609.52, subdivision 1, clause (3), and expenses incurred by a direct or indirect victim as a result of a violation of this section.
Subd. 2. Crime. A person who sells, possesses, receives, or transfers a check that is stolen or counterfeit, knowing or having reason to know the check is stolen or counterfeit, is guilty of a crime and may be punished as provided in subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Penalties. A person who violates subdivision 2 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the offense involves a single direct victim and the total, combined loss to the direct victim and any indirect victims is $250 or less, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (5);
(2) if the offense involves a single direct victim and the total, combined loss to the direct victim and any indirect victims is more than $250 but not more than $500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (4);
(3) if the offense involves two or three direct victims or the total, combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $500 but not more than $2,500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (3); and
(4) if the offense involves four or more direct victims, or if the total, combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $2,500, the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (2).
To secure a conviction for Possession or Sale of Stolen or Counterfeit Check under Minnesota Statute § 609.528, subdivision 2, the prosecution must prove each specific element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements combine the physical act of handling the check with the check’s illicit status (stolen or counterfeit) and the accused person’s knowledge regarding that status. Failure by the state to establish any one of these components means a conviction cannot legally stand under this statute.
The penalties for possessing or selling stolen or counterfeit checks under Minnesota Statute § 609.528 are determined by the number of direct victims involved or the total financial loss caused, directly mirroring parts of the penalty structure for the general theft statute (§ 609.52, subd. 3). The law establishes several tiers, ranging from a misdemeanor for minor offenses to significant felonies for cases involving multiple victims or substantial losses.
The statute outlines the following penalty structure:
It’s important to note that “loss” includes value obtained plus expenses incurred by victims (§ 609.528, subd. 1(d)). While not explicitly stated in § 609.528, the aggregation rules from the general theft statute might potentially apply if multiple offenses under this section occur within six months.
The crime outlined in § 609.528 targets the handling of bad checks, distinct from actually forging or passing them. Examples help clarify how possessing, selling, receiving, or transferring stolen or fake checks, with the required knowledge, can lead to charges under this statute. The focus is on the check itself and the defendant’s awareness of its fraudulent nature.
These scenarios highlight the importance of the “knowing or having reason to know” element. Simply finding or briefly holding a check might not be enough if criminal knowledge cannot be proven. However, circumstances suggesting awareness – like buying checks at a deep discount, possessing check-making materials alongside them, or the checks having obvious alterations – can lead to liability under § 609.528.
Mike steals a checkbook from someone’s mailbox. He knows he can’t easily cash the checks himself without ID. Instead, he approaches individuals known to engage in fraud and offers to sell the entire book of blank stolen checks for $100. He successfully sells the checkbook to Sarah, telling her they are “hot.”
Mike has violated § 609.528, subd. 2. He sold checks that were stolen, and he clearly knew they were stolen (as he stole them himself). The penalty level would depend on the potential loss associated with the checks or the number of victims (the account holder is one direct victim). Sarah could also be charged under this statute for receiving or possessing checks knowing they were stolen.
Police investigate a fraud ring and execute a search warrant at Lisa’s apartment. They find a stack of 50 counterfeit payroll checks, expertly printed with the name and account information of a legitimate local company, but made payable to various fictitious names. They also find computers and software used for creating counterfeit checks and lists of names and addresses. The total face value of the checks is over $30,000.
Lisa is guilty under § 609.528, subd. 2. She possessed counterfeit checks. The circumstances – quantity of checks, check-making equipment, fictitious payee names – strongly indicate she knew they were counterfeit. Since the potential loss (face value of checks intended for fraud) is well over $2,500, and likely involves multiple potential indirect victims (banks, businesses cashing checks) and one direct victim (the company whose account was used), she faces felony penalties under § 609.528, subd. 3(4).
David owes money to Chris. David gives Chris a check for $400 but tells him, “Hold onto this for a week, I need to make sure the funds are there, it might be tight.” Chris knows David has a history of bouncing checks. Despite this warning and knowledge (giving him reason to know it might be bad/counterfeit in the sense of being drawn on insufficient funds with intent), Chris immediately tries to cash the check, and it bounces. Chris keeps the bounced check.
While David might face charges for issuing a worthless check (§ 609.535) or theft by check (§ 609.52), charging Chris under § 609.528 for receiving or possessing this specific check might be difficult. Although Chris had “reason to know” the check might be problematic (related to insufficient funds), the statute focuses on checks that are stolen or counterfeit. A check merely drawn on insufficient funds, without being stolen or forged/fake, doesn’t neatly fit the definition required for § 609.528. Chris didn’t possess a stolen or counterfeit check in the typical sense.
Amy receives a legitimate check for $50. She skillfully alters the amount to read $500. She then gives the altered check to her friend, Ben, asking him to deposit it into his account and give her the cash, offering him a cut. Ben looks at the check, notices the amount looks slightly altered, and knows Amy is often involved in scams, giving him reason to know it’s counterfeit (altered). Ben agrees and takes the check.
Amy could be charged with forgery (§ 609.631) for altering the check. Ben could be charged under § 609.528, subd. 2. He received and possessed a check that was counterfeit (altered), and the circumstances (obvious alteration, Amy’s reputation, the arrangement) gave him reason to know it was counterfeit. The penalty level would depend on the loss caused (potentially $450 if successfully deposited) and the number of victims (payor, potentially Ben’s bank), likely falling under the gross misdemeanor or lower felony tiers.
Facing charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.528 for handling stolen or counterfeit checks means the prosecution believes you possessed, sold, received, or transferred such an item with knowledge of its illicit nature. While these charges can lead to serious penalties, including potential felony convictions, the state carries the full burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. An effective defense strategy involves carefully examining the evidence and challenging the prosecution’s case on one or more essential elements.
Key areas for defense often include disputing the defendant’s knowledge (actual or constructive) that the check was stolen or counterfeit, questioning whether the check truly meets the definition of stolen or counterfeit, or challenging whether the defendant actually possessed or controlled the check as alleged. Procedural errors or violations of constitutional rights during the investigation or arrest can also provide grounds for defense motions. A thorough review by a criminal defense attorney is crucial to identify the most viable defense approaches based on the specific facts of the case.
This is often the most critical defense. The prosecution must prove the accused either knew the check was stolen/counterfeit or had reason to know. The defense argues this mental state was absent.
The defense challenges the prosecution’s fundamental assertion that the check itself was stolen or counterfeit. If the check was legitimate, the statute does not apply.
The prosecution must prove the accused actually sold, possessed, received, or transferred the specific check(s). The defense can argue the accused never had the necessary control or involvement.
If law enforcement discovered the stolen or counterfeit check(s) through a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence may be suppressed, potentially leading to dismissal of the charges.
This law makes it a crime to sell, possess, receive, or transfer a check if you know, or have reason to know, that the check is either stolen or counterfeit (fake/forged).
Forgery involves making or altering a check with intent to defraud. Theft by check involves using a bad check (e.g., insufficient funds) to obtain property or services. Section 609.528 focuses specifically on the handling (possessing, selling, receiving, transferring) of checks already known to be stolen or counterfeit, even before they are used.
It generally means a check that is not genuine. This could include checks that are completely fabricated, checks printed using stolen account information, or legitimate checks that have been altered (e.g., amount or payee changed) without authorization.
“Reason to know” is an objective standard. It means that based on the facts and circumstances available to you, a reasonable person in your position would have concluded the check was likely stolen or counterfeit. Obvious alterations, buying checks for far less than face value, or getting them from a known fraudster could create a “reason to know.” Mere suspicion might not be enough if not based on concrete red flags.
No. The crime under § 609.528 is complete if you sell, possess, receive, or transfer the check knowing (or having reason to know) it’s stolen or counterfeit. Your ultimate plan for the check doesn’t change the illegality of handling it with that knowledge.
Penalties depend on the number of direct victims (people whose checks were stolen or whose info was used on counterfeit checks) or the total financial loss caused to all victims (direct and indirect, like banks). It ranges from a misdemeanor (1 victim, loss <=$250) to a 10-year felony (4+ victims or loss >$2,500).
Yes, if possessing that one check leads to a loss exceeding $500 (making it a 5-year felony) or $2,500 (making it a 10-year felony), or if it involves multiple direct victims (2-3 victims for a 5-year felony, 4+ for a 10-year felony). The potential loss associated with the check often determines the charge level.
Loss includes the value obtained by the illegal activity (e.g., amount successfully cashed or goods obtained) plus expenses incurred by victims as a result (like bank fees, costs to close accounts, time spent resolving issues).
Yes. Possessing a blank check that you know or have reason to know is stolen falls under § 609.528, subd. 2. Even though it’s blank, it’s still a stolen check, and possessing it with knowledge is illegal.
Simply finding and picking up a check might not immediately constitute a crime if you intend to return it or destroy it. However, keeping it (“possessing” it) with the knowledge or suspicion it might be stolen or lost, or attempting to transfer or sell it, could lead to charges under § 609.528 or other statutes like theft of lost property (§ 609.52).
Yes. The statute applies to any stolen or counterfeit check handled within Minnesota with the required knowledge, regardless of where the check originated or where the theft/counterfeiting occurred.
The statute specifically uses the word “check.” While cashier’s checks and money orders are financial instruments, whether they fall under the legal definition of “check” for this specific statute might require legal interpretation based on case law or other statutory definitions. Related conduct involving stolen or counterfeit money orders might be charged under general theft or forgery laws.
Yes, convictions under § 609.528 (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony) are generally eligible for expungement in Minnesota after required waiting periods are met and other statutory criteria are satisfied.
The law applies to any “person” who commits the prohibited acts. This typically includes individuals but could potentially extend to corporations or other entities if the entity itself is shown to possess or traffic in stolen/counterfeit checks through its agents.
Do not attempt to cash or deposit it. You should refuse to accept it if possible. If you already have it, you should contact law enforcement or the bank the check is drawn on to report your suspicions. Handling it further (possessing, transferring) after suspecting it’s illicit could expose you to liability.
A conviction for Possession or Sale of Stolen or Counterfeit Check under Minnesota Statute § 609.528 can lead to significant long-term difficulties, mirroring the consequences of other theft and fraud-related offenses. Because the penalty level often rises to a gross misdemeanor or felony based on loss amount or victim count, the collateral impacts are frequently severe.
Any conviction under this statute creates a criminal record indicating involvement with fraudulent financial instruments. This record of dishonesty is a major red flag on background checks for employment, housing, and professional licensing. Employers, especially in finance, retail, or positions requiring handling of money or sensitive information, are often unwilling to hire individuals with such convictions. Landlords may also deny housing applications based on the perceived risk associated with financial crimes.
Courts typically order restitution to victims for any losses incurred due to the stolen or counterfeit check. This financial obligation can be substantial and may last for many years, potentially leading to wage garnishment or other collection actions if unpaid. Furthermore, involvement with fraudulent checks, even if unsuccessful, can negatively impact the defendant’s relationship with financial institutions, potentially making it difficult to open bank accounts or obtain credit in the future. While the conviction itself doesn’t directly appear on a credit report, associated debts or judgments can severely damage credit scores.
Individuals holding professional licenses (e.g., accountants, real estate agents, insurance brokers, financial advisors) face serious risks if convicted under § 609.528. State licensing boards view crimes involving financial dishonesty and fraud as grounds for disciplinary action, which can include suspension or permanent revocation of the license needed to practice their profession. This can effectively end a career built on professional trust and financial integrity.
For non-U.S. citizens, a conviction for possessing or selling stolen or counterfeit checks is highly likely to be considered a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Depending on the specific circumstances and sentence, it could also potentially be classified as an aggravated felony. A CIMT or aggravated felony conviction typically carries severe immigration consequences, including potential deportation, denial of admission to the U.S., and bars to obtaining lawful permanent residence or citizenship. Legal advice addressing immigration implications is critical for any non-citizen facing these charges.
The mental state requirement – proving the defendant knew or had reason to know the check was stolen or counterfeit – is the linchpin of a § 609.528 prosecution and a primary focus for the defense. A criminal defense attorney meticulously examines the evidence the state relies on to establish this knowledge. They challenge weak inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence (like a low purchase price), highlight lack of direct proof of knowledge, and present evidence supporting the defendant’s claim of ignorance or good faith. If the attorney can successfully demonstrate that the defendant neither knew nor had sufficient objective reason to know the check was illicit, the prosecution’s case fails on this critical element.
An effective defense involves verifying the prosecution’s claim that the check itself was actually stolen or counterfeit. A defense attorney doesn’t simply accept this allegation. They may investigate the origins of the check, seek information from the purported victim or issuing bank, and potentially consult forensic document examiners. If evidence emerges that the check was legitimate, involved only a payment dispute, was reported stolen erroneously, or wasn’t truly counterfeit according to legal definitions, the attorney can move to dismiss the charges as the fundamental basis for the § 609.528 violation is absent.
The prosecution must prove the defendant actually possessed, sold, received, or transferred the specific check(s) in question. A defense attorney investigates the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the check. Was it found during a legal search? Can the state definitively link the check to the defendant, especially if found in a shared space (constructive possession)? Were proper chain-of-custody procedures followed by law enforcement to ensure the check presented in court is the same one allegedly handled by the defendant without alteration? Challenges to possession or the evidence chain can create significant reasonable doubt.
Given that § 609.528 penalties escalate based on loss amount or victim count, often reaching felony levels, negotiation plays a vital role. A defense attorney leverages any weaknesses in the state’s case (regarding knowledge, check status, possession) to negotiate with the prosecutor for reduced charges (e.g., misdemeanor instead of felony), participation in diversion programs, or a stay of adjudication to avoid a conviction record. They also advise the client on the significant collateral consequences (employment, housing, immigration, licensing) and work to achieve a resolution that minimizes this long-term damage alongside the direct criminal penalties.
