Bad check writing is a crime in of itself in many states. If you write a check and cant back it, that is a crime- ymmv and ianal.
Yes. Did the check clear? It did not, thus the check was worthless.
Mind you, prosecution and arrests for this vary a great deal, and there is intent, etc. If the check was small, and there was no intent, prosecution is unlikely.
But look at the Op- the check is not small, and the account is emptied that same day. At that point in time, the DA can assume intent, and a jury will make the decision.
This may be a hijack.
Based on the recent “Chase Bank endless $$$ hack” on TikTok and given that check usage is relatively rare nowadays do the younglings really not know how checks work or understand check fraud?
My youngest is 25 and I’m now thinking if he had to write a check he would have no clue how to do it. Or how check clearance works behind the scenes. I assumes he knows you are not allowed to write a check for more than you have in your account now AND 3 days from now but maybe he doesn’t.
But the intent (mens rea) needs to be present at the time of the action (actus reus). If the action is writing a bad check, then the intent of doing so must be present at that time. If there were sufficient funds in the account at the time the check was written, and the account was only depleted afterwards (and the defendant did not already intend, when he wrote the check, to deplete the account at a later stage), then actua reus and mens rea don’t coincide, and there is no criminal liability.
On the one hand we would have the hypothetical OP person “I really intended that check to be good, but then I went out gambling and lost it all”. The DA may counter that the OP knew full well they were gonna gamble, and thus losses were normal, thus the OP knew that the check was doubtful to start. Or that he never intended that the check was good in the first place. The OP person knows his real intent, but the DA and the Jury does not.
Then the jury gets to look at a score of sad faced girl scouts vs a degenerate gambler. Not looking good.
I’m reminded of a Perry Mason story I read (yes, they were books before they were a series…)
Perry’s client was in possession of a check for a large amount and had no money - something like her elder relative wrote her a big cheque as a gift, and the relative’s other relation who was caregiver and didn’t like Perry’s client moved all the money out of the account so the cheque could not be cashed.
Bank manager is a friend of Perrry’s and knows the situtation (doesn’t like the caregiver) and informs Perry that a third party had just insisted on paying a debt by depositing a substantial sum in the account. Bank manager hasn’t told the caregiver yet.
The amount in the account is let’s say $3000 and the cheque is for $5000. Perry then deposits his own $2000 in the account also, and cashes the cheque, so his client can get at least $3000.
Of course the bank manager probably violated all sorts of confidences, but those were the good old days. There was no discussion of bad cheque charges, because the cheque was written in good faith (by a frail old lady) and the money was there when it was written.