1. Document Falsification | Case Background
This matter began when the client, who had been helping manage his father’s property, prepared a deed related document based on what he believed was his father’s authorization.
The client had long supported his father, handled financial matters, and participated in the maintenance of family land.
When the father’s medical condition worsened, the client assumed greater responsibility for administrative tasks.
Family Conflict Surrounding Property Management
The client had spent decades assisting his father with agricultural work and general property management.
As the father’s health deteriorated, he increasingly relied on the client to carry out routine matters, including preparing documents on his behalf.
While the client considered these tasks part of long standing family responsibilities, his sibling viewed the preparation of a deed related document as an unauthorized act.
This disagreement escalated into a criminal complaint alleging document falsification and forgery.
Specific Allegations Raised by the Complainant
The complainant asserted that:
The client prepared a deed related document without the father’s express consent.
The father allegedly did not participate in signing or reviewing the document.
The client’s actions constituted forgery and the unauthorized use of a legal instrument intended to transfer property rights.
These allegations led the authorities to examine whether the client may have violated New York Penal Law provisions concerning document falsification.
2. Document Falsification | Legal Exposure and Key Issues
Under New York criminal law, document falsification does not hinge solely on the act of drafting or signing a document.
Instead, prosecutors must establish a fraudulent intent meaning an intent to deceive or obtain an unfair advantage beyond any family or administrative misunderstanding.
Relevant New York Penal Law Provisions
Investigators evaluated the client’s conduct under several forgery related statutes:
Forgery in the Second Degree (PL §170.10): Involves falsely creating or altering a written instrument that affects property rights.
Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (PL §170.25): Requires knowing possession of a forged document with intent to use it fraudulently.
Offering a False Instrument for Filing (PL §175.35): Applies when a knowingly false document is submitted to a public office with the intent to defraud.
All three offenses require proof of intent to defraud, which became the decisive issue in the case.
Core Dispute: Authority and Intent
The defense and prosecution focused on two critical questions:
▶ Did the client have express or implied authorization from his father to prepare property related documents?
▶ Was there any intent to defraud, deceive, or unlawfully obtain property rights?
The client consistently stated that he acted at his father’s request, as he had done for years, and that no financial gain or deceitful purpose motivated the document’s preparation.
These circumstances significantly weakened the foundation for a document falsification charge.
3. Document Falsification | Defense Strategy and Findings
To counter the allegations, the defense applied New York’s definition of document falsification, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent and the presence of long standing family authorization.
Demonstrating Implied Authorization
The defense submitted comprehensive evidence showing implied authorization, including:
Prior financial and property documents historically prepared by the client on the father’s behalf.
Medical information demonstrating the father’s declining condition and reliance on the client for day to day affairs.
Statements confirming that the father trusted the client to manage relevant paperwork.
This evidence established that the client’s preparation of the deed related document was consistent with established family practice rather than a deceptive act.
Establishing Lack of Intent to Defraud
Under New York law, document falsification requires purposeful deceit. The defense demonstrated:
The client had no motive to obtain property unlawfully.
The document was part of an administrative process, not a scheme for personal gain.
There was no attempt to hide the document, mislead authorities, or use it to execute a fraudulent transaction.
Because intent is an essential element of document falsification, the prosecution could not meet its burden.
4. Document Falsification | Non Prosecution Determination
After reviewing all submissions and interviewing key individuals, the prosecution concluded that criminal charges were unwarranted.
Reasons for Declining Prosecution
The prosecutor’s office dismissed the matter for the following reasons:
The client acted with implied authorization from his father.
The document was created in the context of regular family property management.
No fraudulent objective, benefit, or concealment was present.
The dispute more closely resembled a civil disagreement among family members rather than a criminal act.
Because the essential elements of document falsification were not satisfied, the case was formally closed without charges.
26 Nov, 2025
