1. Forgery Offense | Initial Client Consultation and Case Overview
The client approached the defense team after being notified that he was under investigation for a forgery offense involving the alleged creation and use of a falsified business document.
Because New York Penal Law treats a forgery offense as a crime requiring proof of intent to defraud, deceive, or injure, the early assessment focused on whether the complainant’s statements aligned with statutory elements.
From the outset, the defense aimed to prevent the case from advancing beyond the investigation phase.
Allegations Raised by the Complainant
The complainant alleged that the client stamped a company authorization document without permission and submitted it as a valid form, thereby committing a forgery offense.
The accusation specifically claimed that the client fabricated the instrument and then used it to complete a financial transaction.
However, during the consultation, the client explained that the complainant had previously granted implied consent to use the company seal for recurring monthly transactions.
This background made it immediately necessary to demonstrate the absence of fraudulent intent, a critical factor under New York’s forgery offense framework.
Key Legal Questions Identified
▶ Did the client have actual or implied authority to affix the company seal?
▶ Was the document materially false in a manner required to constitute a forgery offense?
▶ Could the complainant’s own conduct establish implied consent to repeated use of the seal?
▶ Would the transaction’s purpose paying the complainant’s financial obligations contradict any intent to defraud?
2. Forgery Offense | Defense Strategy Emphasizing Implied Authorization
Under New York Penal Law, a forgery offense requires the creation or alteration of a written instrument without authority, coupled with intent to deceive or injure another.
The defense team therefore aimed to prove that the document’s execution resulted from ongoing implied authorization rather than unlawful falsification.
This strategic approach aligned with New York precedents recognizing that consent express or implied negates the core element of unauthorized creation.
Demonstrating Long Standing Implied Consent
The defense gathered evidence showing that monthly financial transactions for the complainant required the same document to be stamped repeatedly.
The complainant had previously asked the client to manage these transactions to avoid the inconvenience of visiting the bank each month.
Bank records confirmed that all transfers were applied exclusively toward the complainant’s existing loan obligations, eliminating any inference of personal gain.
By establishing a consistent pattern of delegated authority, the defense undermined the complainant’s assertion that a forgery offense had occurred.
Refuting Intent to Defraud
A forgery offense in New York cannot exist without intent to defraud.
The defense submitted documentation proving that every transaction benefitted not harmed the complainant.
The absence of self enrichment, coupled with repetitive authorized conduct, created a factual scenario inconsistent with criminal intent.
Investigators were further shown that the complainant had not objected to the prior use of the seal, reinforcing implied permission.
3. Forgery Offense | Legal Analysis of Statutory Elements
Because a forgery offense under New York law requires a written instrument that is falsely made, altered, or completed, the defense broke down the statutory components to demonstrate why the accusation failed.
The police investigation relied heavily on whether the complainant’s seal was used “without authority,” a term that cannot be satisfied when prior authority has been implied or routinely exercised.
Holding the prosecution to the statutory burden was central to the strategy.
Document Was Not “Falsely Made” Under New York Law
A document is “falsely made” only if it purports to be something it is not.
Here, the form was genuine, the transaction was legitimate, and the seal was applied for the complainant’s benefit.
Thus, the instrument failed to meet the threshold required for a forgery offense.
By demonstrating the document’s authenticity and lawful purpose, the defense eliminated this core statutory element.
Use of Document (“Uttering”) Lacked Criminal Intent
New York also penalizes the knowing use of a forged instrument.
However, because the form was not forged and the client had acted with implied authorization, the act of submitting the document could not constitute a forgery offense.
Investigators acknowledged that the client reasonably believed the submission was part of routine monthly duties previously approved by the complainant.
4. Forgery Offense | Case Resolution and Non Prosecution Outcome
Ultimately, the investigation concluded with a determination of insufficient evidence, and the case was closed at the inquiry stage.
The forgery offense allegation did not advance to prosecution because the statutory elements unauthorized creation and fraudulent intent could not be supported by the facts.
This outcome underscores the impact of a well structured defense strategy grounded in New York’s legal standards.
Importance of Early Legal Intervention
Early involvement allowed the defense to:
Secure financial records demonstrating authorized past conduct
Present clear evidence of implied consent
Establish the absence of fraudulent intent essential to any forgery offense
Prevent unnecessary escalation to formal charges
For individuals facing a forgery offense investigation, proactive legal guidance is often the determining factor in preventing criminal exposure.
03 Dec, 2025
