Fraud, Embezzlement, Bad Checks Theft of Services

Status
Not open for further replies.

gmfod

New Member
Recently, while I was out of town, I gave my girlfriend permission to write checks on my account if she needed to. She had them in her purse, while she was out with some "friends", and they got their automobile stuck in a ditch.
One of the girls with her asked to use her cell phone to call a tow truck because her own phone was not getting good enough reception. They called a tow truck to pull them(in her friend's Boyfriend's truck) out of the ditch. Her friends told her they had the towing fee covered.
Weeks later a check hit my account. It was written out in one hand-writing, and the signature looked like it couldn't have been signed by my girlfriend. I asked her if she wrote a check to pay for their towing, and she said "no", knowing that I got online digital copies of my check and i would find out. So there was no reason for her to lie about it. I showed her the digital copy and she said she didn't write it. I asked her several times, telling her if she did just let me know and I would cover it. If she didn't I was going to cancel it and report it as a fraudulent check.
She still maintained that she did not write the check so I canceled it.
Later the towing service called her phone making threats and I explained to them that neither one of us wrote the check and that it was reported as a fraudulent check.
It was turned over for collection where I explained the check was fraudulent and neither my girlfriend or I wrote it.
The police questioned us and we told them the story, and they questioned the tow truck driver, who is friends with the person we suspect wrote the check to them. The tow truck driver claimed he wrote the check out and my girlfriend signed it. They did not take any ID which is typical for this kind of transaction, which is kind of odd considering they were writing a check with a guy's name on it.

My girlfriend claimed that someone must have taken the checkbook out of her purse that was in the back seat of the truck while she was not present in the truck, and still maintains that she did not authorize or sign the check.

But now the State's Attorney is trying to prosecute my girlfriend for theft of services with nothing but the word of the tow truck driver.
I assume the proper course of action would be to have our attorney request a signature analysis to prove she didn't sign that check.

Any other suggestions?
 
I'm not convinced that would be enough to clear her name at all.

Evidently the State's Attorney doesn't believe her; has she tried to contact the other people?
 
I'll bet the tow wasn't $200.
This is very sad.
Here's your problem, rather hers, OP.
You're in the clear, even if you eat the tow fees.
Your gal pal, she's in serious caca.
Your verbal permission aside, the moment you reported the check as an unauthorized transaction, that's the moment you gift wrapped your gal pal for the DA to persecute.

In Illinois, it's called "deceptive practices".
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K17-1

It could be charged as forgery. How was she charged, OP?
http://www.criminallawyerillinois.com/2012/01/16/illinois-law-changes-definition-of-forgery-in-2012/

If I were her counsel, I'd discuss the possibility of her taking a polygraph.
Yes, it's not admissible, but it could short circuit the witch hunt.
It also instigates some liars into coming clean.

This is a very peculiar situation.
If the tow truck driver uttered the words on the check, I'd request a handwriting exemplar from him, your gal pal, and the idiot that signed your name.
Discuss this with her/your attorney.
If the TTD balks, BINGO, one down.
If the "fake friend" balks, BINGO.
It's not necessarily dispositive alone, but coupled with other investigative techniques, it might extricate your GF from this deadly trap.
 
Last edited:
the definition of deceptive practice includes this "knowing that it will not be paid by the depository."
She knew that if she wrote the check and told me she wrote the check that it WOULD be paid. I told her that several times even before I cancelled it.
So there was no intent to defraud anyone of anything, so how can they even prosecute under this law, when there was no intent to defraud anyone of anything, even if she would have been the one to sign the check?

But the facts are, she did not sign the check and we have requested signature analysis and when it comes back she did not sign it, that the people that said she did and knew otherwise be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy.
 
Perhaps she's telling you what she thinks you want to hear. Obviously someone higher up isn't believing her.

There will be no OOJ or criminal conspiracy prosecution here.

And once again, signature analysis won't do what you think it will do.
 
What do you mean it will not do what I think it will do?
They will not be able to tell if she signed the check or not?
 
Oh they might be able to do that, yes. But that won't prove that she wasn't involved, or that she didn't initiate the entire alleged fraud herself.

Note that I have no dog in this fight - but if I was a prosecutor, the fact that the check was not signed by her wouldn't prove much of anything at all. She had the checks in her possession, and she was for all intents and purposes the only person who could access them - at least until otherwise proven.
 
Well if two people claim she signed the check, and the writing analysis proves otherwise, wouldn't that reduce their credibility and cast suspicion on them? They didn't say she told them to write it, they said she wrote it, and it appears she did not.
She had absolutely no reason to be involved in defrauding a tow truck company of $50.
She already knew I would cover it if she wrote it.
She wrote other checks, and higher amounts, and it is just a mysterious coincidence that the only one she said she didn't write is the one that doesn't look like her writing?
 
Well if two people claim she signed the check, and the writing analysis proves otherwise, wouldn't that reduce their credibility and cast suspicion on them? They didn't say she told them to write it, they said she wrote it, and it appears she did not.
She had absolutely no reason to be involved in defrauding a tow truck company of $50.
She already knew I would cover it if she wrote it.
She wrote other checks, and higher amounts, and it is just a mysterious coincidence that the only one she said she didn't write is the one that doesn't look like her writing?

Those two people, even if they are LYING, can mess her life up for ever.
You don't know how this works.
Frankly, I don't to tell you how it works.
But imagine being in a room with a bunch of lying bunch of thugified gossips would be like.
That's a sample of what court CAN be like.
People DO lie on defendants everyday and they go to prison based on those lies.
So far, she has two people accusing her of some nasty stuff.

Ms. Pro gave you good advise, think about it.
A criminal trial is more than getting a note from mom vouching for your honesty.
She needs a criminal defense lawyer, not a DIY website.

You need to seek legal counsel for her immediately.
The last thing you want to do is play lawyer or knight in shining armor.
If you rust her, believe she isn't lying, help her hire a criminal defense lawyer.
You aren't involved.
There is no WE.
Help her get a lawyer, go with her to discuss this with the lawyer.
The lawyer can best advise you and her.
Until you meet with teh lawyer, and after you have met with the lawyer, stop discussing this.
Also, stop trying to figure out ways to help her prove her innocence.

If she is a criminal defendant, she is not required to prove or disprove anything.

The state has the burden of proof.
The state must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) to 12 jurors that she did what the state charged her with doing.

Smart defendants don't come up with explanations and try to argue away insinuations and allegations.
Smart defendants, that hire smart lawyers know just to STFU.

I wish you well, but hire her that lawyer ASAP, and let the lawyer work some magic.
 
Last edited:
I am not playing knight in shining armor. I am asking questions trying to understand how they can possibly charge a person without criminal intent and with no criminal record believing people that do have a criminal record including one that is currently in jail for check writing fraud.
She has an appointed attorney because affording an attorney at the present time is kind of a problem.
 
I am not playing knight in shining armor. I am asking questions trying to understand how they can possibly charge a person without criminal intent and with no criminal record believing people that do have a criminal record including one that is currently in jail for check writing fraud.
She has an appointed attorney because affording an attorney at the present time is kind of a problem.

Okay, I offered you suggestions.
I attempted to explain a few things.
This little website is no substitute for an attorney's advice in your area.
She has an attorney, a public defender is as qualified as any other attorney.
She's in good hands.
That aside, sometimes we get into things that even the best attorney in the USA can't get us out of, because we;ve done too much, or people are lying on us.
I accept your representation that your lady did nothing wrong, unacceptable, evil, or criminal.
I can understand how a check can be stolen, information forged, two or three people lie on her to get money.
The problem here is that why stop at $50?
There are dumb criminals who only steal a candy bar when they could steal a case of whiskey or a carton of iPads.
But, I suspect the DA and the police don't believe her because they probably think that no one make sa big lie about a little amount.
Plus, they've probably checked your entire account history over the past 90 days.
I don't know anything more we can do for you.
We're going around in circles.
I hope things work out well.

Good luck to you and her.
Again, I gently urge you not to discuss this with anyone but her.
She should only speak to her lawyer and you, but be careful, you can be commanded to appear in court and testify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top