Forgery Defense Attorney | Document Misuse Allegation Resulting in Not Guilt

The clients operated under the direction of a business owner who had formally entrusted them with authority to manage operations and resolve issues that arose during commercial transactions. 

During one such transaction, a dispute emerged concerning goods supplied by a vendor, making it necessary to prepare a notarized record to document the parties’ commitments. 

Acting under the delegated authority, the clients executed a notarized statement and documentation bearing the representative’s name because they believed it was required to resolve the issue efficiently. 

However, once the dispute escalated, the representative reported the clients for creating documents “without permission,” framing the conduct as a form of forgery or unauthorized writing under D.C. law.

Unlike some jurisdictions that contain a single consolidated “forgery statute,” Washington D.C. addresses document related offenses through multiple statutory provisions, including false statements (D.C. Code § 22-2405), fraudulent practices (D.C. Code § 22-3221), and other prohibitions against creating or using false writings in matters involving legal or financial consequences. 

Charges may be brought when a person knowingly creates, alters, or presents a document with intent to defraud, harm, or obtain a benefit. 

These statutes require proof of intentional wrongdoing, unlawfulness, and the absence of authority—elements that the defense focused on throughout the representation.

The defense demonstrated that the clients acted within the explicit scope of authority granted by the company’s representative, who had authorized them to manage transactions and execute business documents as needed. 

The attorney argued that the clients’ use of the representative's name on documentation was not done to deceive, obtain an unlawful benefit, or misrepresent facts but rather to fulfill the operational duties they had been assigned. 

By establishing that the clients neither manufactured false information nor attempted to gain personal advantage, the defense eliminated the core statutory elements required for a falsification related conviction in Washington D.C.

Because D.C.’s falsification related statutes require intent to defraud or injure, the attorney emphasized that the documents were created solely for legitimate business purposes. 

The defense presented clear evidence showing that no personal use, private gain, or unauthorized diversion existed. Instead, the clients were attempting to resolve a business issue that required timely documentation, which they reasonably believed they had authority to execute. 

This demonstrated the absence of any fraudulent motive or criminal design, undermining the prosecution’s central theory of the case.

The court held that the evidence did not support any finding of unauthorized intent, misrepresentation, or fraudulent purpose. 

The judge agreed that because the clients were acting under delegated business authority, believed the documentation was required, and did not seek any personal advantage, the elements of any D.C. falsification or fraudulent writing offense were not met. 

As a result, the accusations failed to satisfy statutory requirements relating to knowing falsification, intent to defraud, or use of a false writing.

This case underscores that document related criminal charges in Washington D.C. do not automatically lead to criminal liability simply because a document was signed, prepared, or submitted on someone else’s behalf. 

What matters under D.C. law is whether the person knowingly created or used a false writing with fraudulent intent or without lawful authority. 

When an individual acts under delegation, follows business protocols, or reasonably believes that their actions are permitted, a skilled forgery defense attorney can show that criminal intent is absent and prevent wrongful conviction or unjust penalties.