N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5 Bad checks, money orders, electronic funds transfers.

A person who issues or passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, or authorizes an electronic funds transfer, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee, commits an offense as provided for in subsection c. of this section.  For the purposes of this section as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, an issuer is presumed to know that the check, money order, or electronic funds transfer (other than a post-dated check, money order, or electronic funds transfer) would not be paid, if:

a.The issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check or money order was issued or the electronic funds transfer was made; or

b.Payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, or due to a closed account, after a deposit by the payee into a bank for collection or after presentation to the drawee within 46 days after issue, and the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal or after notice has been sent to the issuer's last known address.  Notice of refusal may be given to the issuer orally or in writing in any reasonable manner by any person.

c.An offense under this section is:

(1)a crime of the second degree if the amount of the check, money order, or electronic funds transfer is $75,000.00 or more;

(2)a crime of the third degree if the amount of the check, money order, or electronic funds transfer is $1,000.00 or more but is less than $75,000.00;

(3)a crime of the fourth degree if the amount of the check, money order, or electronic funds transfer is $200.00 or more but is less than $1,000.00;

(4)a disorderly persons offense if the amount of the check, money order, or electronic funds transfer is less than $200.00.




If the amount of check is less than $200.00, the case will be heard in the municipal court The defendant (name) has been charged with the crime of issuing (or passing) a bad check (or similar sight order), in that the defendant allegedly:
(Read Indictment)The pertinent part of the statute on which this indictment is based reads as follows:
A person who issues or passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee, commits an offense.
As used in the statute, the word issue means to put into circulation.1 The word pass means to move from one , person to another, or hand from one person to another.2 A check is a draft drawn on a bank payable on demand.3 , [Where appropriate, charge the following: A sight order is an instrument for an immediate collection of money.4 A , drawee is the financial institution at which the issuer had, or made representation (he/she) had, an account at the , time the check or order was issued or passed. , The State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1) The defendant knowingly issued or passed a check [or, where appropriate, sight order] for the , payment of money; and
(2) The defendant knew at the time (he/she) issued or passed it, that it would not be honored by the drawee.5
Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendant circumstances , if the person is aware that (his/her) conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or the person is aware , of a high
probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if the person is aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a result.
You may infer that the issuer knew that the check [or, where appropriate, sight order] would not be paid, if you , find, either:
(a) The issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check [or, where appropriate, sight order] , was issued; or (b) Payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation within 30 days after issue, and , the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal or after notice has been , sent to the issuers last known address. Notice of refusal may be given to the issuer orally or in writing in , any reasonable manner by any person.6
That is, if you find that the issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check [or, where appropriate, sight order] was issued, or payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation of the check , [or, where appropriate, order] within 30 days of issue, and the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after , receiving reasonable written or oral notice of that refusal or after reasonable notice has been sent to the issuers last , known address, you may then conclude, but are not required to conclude, that the issuer had knowledge the check , [or, where appropriate, sight order] would not be paid., If you find that the State has proven all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you may return a verdict of, guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable , doubt, then you must return a verdict of not guilty., If you find that the State has proven each of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then the State has , the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, the amount of the check [or, where appropriate, sight order]. , You must specify if the amount of the check [or, where appropriate, sight order] is: (a) $75, 000.00 or more;
(b) $1, 000.00 or more but less than $75, 000.00; (c) $200.00 or more but less than $1, 000.00; or (d) Less than $200.00.
1 N.J.S.A. 12A:3-102.
2 Blacks Law Dictionary.
3 N.J.S.A. 12A:3-104.
4 United Benefit Fire Insurance Co. v. First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix, 405 P.2d 488 (l965).
5 These inferences do not apply in the case of a post-dated check or similar sight order.
6 Contrary to pre-Code law, the State is not required to prove that the defendant intended to defraud the victim. The State need only prove that the defendant knew that the check (or similar sight order) would not be honored. See, Commonwealth v. Frank, 468 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Super. 1983) and Commonwealth v. Mutnik, 486 Pa. 428, 406 A.2d 516 (1979) which define the Pennsylvania bad check statute which, as the Code statute, is based upon the Model Penal Code. See, also, State v. Passafiume, 184 N.J. Super. 447, 449 (App. Div. 1982).