What to do if you Forge Documents – Lawyer

Uttering forged documents involves creating or deploying falsified documents with fraudulent intent. This offence is generally taken quite seriously in Canadian law, indicative of the importance of integrity within personal and commercial exchanges. It is important to be able to distinguish between merely possessing a forged document and the act of uttering one, as well as the possession of forgery instruments versus simply owning a fraudulent document. Central to the definition of this crime is the intention to defraud or prejudice another party. So, it is an important component of the crime that the accused had known or ought to have known that they were creating or deploying false documents.

What is the Offence of Use, Trafficking, or Possession of Forged Documents?

Section 368 of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with the use, trafficking, exporting, circulation, or possession of forged documents. It criminalizes the use, circulation, or possession of any forged document, given that the accused had knowledge of its falsified nature and had an intention to deceive another individual. The purpose of this legal provision is to ensure that all types of interactions with forged documents, at any stage, can indeed be punishable by law. It is important to reduce the incidence of creating and circulating forged documents because it can jeopardize the validity of financial/business transactions, damage someone’s reputation, and can cheat other people of their money or assets that they worked hard to obtain.

For example, an individual who attempts to use a fake ID to cash a fraudulent check may be guilty of the offence of use, trafficking, or possession of forged documents. Similarly, an individual who uses fake tax documents to secure a personal loan is guilty of the offence of use, trafficking, or possession of forged documents

What is Offence of Forgery Instruments?

Defined under Section 368.1 of the Criminal Code, this offence is about the creation, repair, or possession of tools intended to be used for the purpose of document forgery. This legislation aims to target the root of forgery operations, thereby targeting the crime from its origin. Depending on what the particular circumstances of the situation are, this offence can be prosecuted as a summary or indictable offense, with penalties reaching up to 14 years in prison.

For example, an individual who possesses a machine capable of printing realistic looking fake ID’s may be guilty of the offence of forgery instruments. An individual who agrees to repair such a machine, knowing or being willfully blind to its illicit use may also be guilty of the offence of forgery instruments. So, it might not be a sufficient excuse for somebody being accused of this crime to claim that they did not know what the machine used to create forged documents was used for—especially if they ought to have known.

Let’s say that you need your boss to sign off on a certain document at work, but you are tight on time. So, you fake his signature on the document. You might think that it is not a big deal because there was no great harm done and he would have signed off on it for you anyway, but this is in fact forgery because you had fraudulent intent. You knew that it was not your boss’ signature but proceeded to pass it off as legitimate anyway.

Distinguishing Between Uttering Forged Documents and Forgery

While forgery refers to the creation or alteration of a document to make it false, uttering a forged document refers to the actual usage or distribution of such illegitimate documents. This difference indicates the transition from document creation to its fraudulent use. Notably, the penalties for uttering forged documents and forgery are different: forgery carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. On the other hand, uttering forged documents can lead to up to 14 years if prosecuted as an indictable offense.

The difference in the maximum sentences for each of the offences might speak to the added layer of seriousness and fraudulent conduct involved in circulating the forged documents. It is one issue to create the forged document, but to deploy it is to amplify the fraudulent effects that falsified documents can have to a wider group of people.

How does the Crown Prove Utter Forged Documents?

To successfully secure a conviction for uttering forged documents, the burden is on the Crown prosecutor to sufficiently establish that the accused both knew about the document’s inauthenticity and intended to commit fraud using it. This usually involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, such as possession of the document and behaviours or actions indicating awareness of its falsity. The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” as it normally is with criminal offences. In practice, this means that the Crown must prove that the accused knew the document was not authentic and used it or intended to use it fraudulently for their personal gain. For example, the Crown may prove that the accused individual purchased a fake ID and attempted to use it to cash a fraudulent cheque.

Additionally, the Crown must also prove the date and location of the alleged offence, the identity of the perpetrator, and the jurisdiction in which the offence occurred.

Potential Consequences for Uttering Forged Documents

As outlined in section 368(1.1) of the Criminal Code, an individual who is convicted of uttering forged documents will face a maximum of ten years in prison if the Crown proceeds by indictment. If the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the accused will face a maximum of two years less a day in jail, and/or up to a $5,000 fine.

Although the maximum sentence includes imprisonment, the actual sentence will vary based on factors like the document’s nature, the severity of the intended fraud, and the defendant’s prior criminal record. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that merely possessing or using a counterfeit document is not sufficient for conviction; there must be a demonstrable intent to harm.

Additionally, various legal remedies, such as restitution payments or no-contact orders, may be available to the accused. Seeking legal counsel is advisable to navigate these nuances and ensure the most favourable legal outcomes.