Worthless Check Crimes Case Results

Internal Reference #1107

Facts: On 9/3, Detective M was assigned the follow-up investigation in regards to this incident. Contact was made with the complainant. The complainant is an employee for a equipment company. In August 2008, the defendant who is the CEO of another company, entered into an annual lease of a tractor. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had secured a mowing contact with the Department of Transportation.

The plaintiff stated that on 1/16, the defendant came to the plaintiff’s office. There the plaintiff was given a check by the defendant. Several months went by, the plaintiff then found out the check was returned, reason of insufficient funds.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant came to his office on 5/8 and he received another check from the defendant. This check was also returned for non-sufficient funds.

Detective M was able to obtain copies of the checks as well as a copy of the contract for the tractor rental. The signatures on the checks appear to be similar to the signature on the defendants drivers license. Also the mailing address listed on the business documents of the defendants company is the same as the defendant’s drivers license address.

Two sworn statements were obtained from the plaintiff. A copy of each was submitted into evidence. In the first statement, the plaintiff stated he went to Miami to pick up the checks. Detective M was contacted by the plaintiff later in the day after obtaining the statement. He stated, he was wrong in the first statement. He had gone to Miami to recover funds, but the checks were actually given to him by the defendant at another location. The plaintiff also stated the checks were deposited, via scanned in at the same location.

Detective M complied a photo line-up which contained the defendant. The photo line-up was shown to the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that it has been over a year since he has seen the defendant and he could not say if he was one of the persons in the line-up or not.

It should be noted that the plaintiff did recover the rented tractor.

Detective M also obtained copies of the defendant’s company bank account via subpoena. This shows that the defendant is the president of the company and account. The statements also show that the defendant bounced other checks from this account and used the account on a regular basis, confirming that he should have been aware of what funds were or were not in the account. The documents also show that the checks were returned to the defendant and his account.

Detective M’s attempts to make contact with the suspect have been unsuccessful.

Based on the aforementioned Facts and investigation, Officer M found probable cause for the arrest of the defendant for Issuing a Worthless Check (2) counts, FSS 832.05(2)a

Results:

1. Issuing a Worthless Check - Dismissed
2. Issuing a Worthless Check - Dismissed

Internal Reference #1158

Facts: Around 2230 Hours, the defendant, along with a co-defendant, entering the drive thru lane of a fast food restaurant. The co-defendant ordered roughly $5.00 worth of food and then drove forward to the drive-thru window. The defendant then handed the co-defendant a counterfeit U.S. $100 bill to make the transaction with the restaurant employee(witness). Once the witness received the bill from the co-defendant, per restaurant policy, the manager was notified to verify the currency. The manager was suspicious about the $100 bill that the witness received from the co-defendant, so the manager used a counterfeit money detection marker on it. The market left a permanent mark on the face of the bill, which indicated the bill, was not real currency. The manager than notified the police.

The defendant and co-defendant were instructed to pull out of the drive-thru lane and their food would be brought to them on foot. The co-defendant then entered the restaurant to retrieve his food and roughly $95.000 change. Upon arrival, Police Sergeant F located the defendant seated in the above vehicle and asked him to enter the store with him. Once inside, Officer K advised both the defendant and co-defendant of their Miranda rights. Post-Miranda, the defendant stated that he knew the $100 bill he passed to the co-defendant, who in turn passed the bill to the witness, was counterfeit. The defendant stated who he received the bill from, and that he went to the fast-food restaurant for the purpose of receiving roughly $90.00 in change after making a purchase with it.

Officer G then placed the defendant under arrest without incident. Officer L notified the Secret Service Duty Desk of the arrest, and the Duty Officer stated that he would not be responding to the scene, but requested the case name and the names of the defendant and co-defendant. The defendant was then transported to the police department for processing. Detective C responded to the police department and took sworn recorded statements from bot the defendant and co-defendant, which support the above Facts. The counterfeit $100 was placed into evidence. The defendant was later transported and released to the custody of the jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Uttering Forged Bills(831.09(1)).

Results: Uttering Forged Bills(831.09(1)) – Withhold of Adjudication . 18 months of probation.