Forgery & Uttering Defense Attorney Massachusetts
Charged with forgery, uttering, or counterfeiting in Massachusetts? Up to 10 years state prison. Free 24/7 consultation with criminal defense attorney.
Over 30 Years Defending Forgery and Uttering Charges in Massachusetts Courts
Forgery and uttering charges in Massachusetts cover the full range of false documents, from a single forged check to systematic counterfeiting operations. Both forgery and uttering carry up to 10 years in state prison. We defend individuals charged with forgery, uttering, and counterfeiting offenses in Essex County and throughout Eastern Massachusetts.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation available 24/7.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation available 24/7.
Understanding Your Situation
Forgery and uttering cases are document-driven, and the central question is almost always intent: did the defendant know the document was false, and did the defendant act with intent to defraud? We have defended people facing forgery and uttering charges for over 30 years in Massachusetts courts.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Understanding Forgery and Uttering Charges in Massachusetts
If you are looking at charging documents involving forgery or uttering, the first thing to understand is that these are two separate but companion offenses. Forgery is the act of creating, altering, or counterfeiting a false document. Uttering is the act of presenting a known-false document as genuine. The same conduct is often charged as both, because someone who passes a forged check has typically both forged it (or someone has) and then uttered it.
Massachusetts forgery law is contained in M.G.L. c. 267, which recognizes five major categories of forgery and uttering offense: forgery of documents, uttering of false documents, counterfeiting of currency and traveler's checks, possession of forged notes or counterfeit bills, and possession of counterfeiting tools. The chapter covers a wide range of false documents, from public records and deeds to checks, promissory notes, and currency. Both forgery (§ 1) and uttering (§ 5) carry the same maximum penalty: up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. The Commonwealth's burden is high on every element. Specific intent to injure or defraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and knowledge of the document's falsity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for uttering. The major Massachusetts forgery and uttering offenses are set out below.
Massachusetts forgery law is contained in M.G.L. c. 267, which recognizes five major categories of forgery and uttering offense: forgery of documents, uttering of false documents, counterfeiting of currency and traveler's checks, possession of forged notes or counterfeit bills, and possession of counterfeiting tools. The chapter covers a wide range of false documents, from public records and deeds to checks, promissory notes, and currency. Both forgery (§ 1) and uttering (§ 5) carry the same maximum penalty: up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. The Commonwealth's burden is high on every element. Specific intent to injure or defraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and knowledge of the document's falsity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for uttering. The major Massachusetts forgery and uttering offenses are set out below.
Forgery
Forgery under M.G.L. c. 267, § 1 is the foundational offense. The Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited a document, that the document falls within the statute (public records, certificates, deeds, wills, bonds, powers of attorney, insurance policies, bills of lading, bills of exchange, promissory notes, money orders, credit cards, traveler's checks, endorsements, and many similar instruments), and that the defendant acted with specific intent to injure or defraud.
Conviction carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in the house of correction. Restitution is typically ordered for any monies lost or injury sustained. The most common cases involve forged checks, forged signatures on financial documents, and altered records, but the statute reaches far more broadly. The intent element is dispositive in most cases. A forgery cannot be committed by accident: the defendant must have acted with intent to deceive someone for the defendant's own benefit or to harm another.
Conviction carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in the house of correction. Restitution is typically ordered for any monies lost or injury sustained. The most common cases involve forged checks, forged signatures on financial documents, and altered records, but the statute reaches far more broadly. The intent element is dispositive in most cases. A forgery cannot be committed by accident: the defendant must have acted with intent to deceive someone for the defendant's own benefit or to harm another.
Uttering False or Forged Records
Uttering under M.G.L. c. 267, § 5 is the companion offense to forgery. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant uttered or published as true a false, forged, or altered document of the type covered by §§ 1-4, that the defendant knew the document was false, forged, or altered, and that the defendant acted with intent to injure or defraud. Critically, the defendant need not be the person who created the false document; merely passing or attempting to pass a false document with the required knowledge and intent is enough.
Conviction also carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. The same penalty range as forgery. The Commonwealth need not prove that the attempt to pass the document was successful: an unsuccessful attempt is enough if the other elements are met. In practice, uttering is the more commonly charged of the two offenses because the act of presentation generates evidence (security camera footage, witness statements, document trails) that the act of forgery often does not. Uttering charges most commonly arise from forged or altered checks presented to banks or merchants.
Conviction also carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. The same penalty range as forgery. The Commonwealth need not prove that the attempt to pass the document was successful: an unsuccessful attempt is enough if the other elements are met. In practice, uttering is the more commonly charged of the two offenses because the act of presentation generates evidence (security camera footage, witness statements, document trails) that the act of forgery often does not. Uttering charges most commonly arise from forged or altered checks presented to banks or merchants.
Counterfeit Currency and Traveler’s Checks
Counterfeiting offenses under M.G.L. c. 267, §§ 8 through 12 cover bank bills, promissory notes payable to bearer, and traveler's checks. Section 8 criminalizes the actual making or counterfeiting of bank notes, traveler's checks, or institutional bills with intent to injure or defraud, carrying up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. Section 10 criminalizes uttering, passing, or tendering counterfeit currency with knowledge of its falsity, with the same penalty.
Counterfeit currency cases often involve federal jurisdiction concurrent with state jurisdiction, since federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 471-474) criminalizes the same conduct. Federal prosecutions typically focus on larger operations and use of digital reproduction equipment. State prosecutions more often arise from individual passings of counterfeit bills detected by retail clerks or banks. Where both jurisdictions could prosecute, an early defense priority is determining which is investigating and engaging accordingly.
Counterfeit currency cases often involve federal jurisdiction concurrent with state jurisdiction, since federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 471-474) criminalizes the same conduct. Federal prosecutions typically focus on larger operations and use of digital reproduction equipment. State prosecutions more often arise from individual passings of counterfeit bills detected by retail clerks or banks. Where both jurisdictions could prosecute, an early defense priority is determining which is investigating and engaging accordingly.
Possession of Forged Notes or Counterfeit Bills
Massachusetts also criminalizes mere possession of forged or counterfeit currency under M.G.L. c. 267, §§ 9 and 12. Section 9 imposes enhanced penalties for possession of 10 or more false, forged, or counterfeited notes, bills, or traveler's checks with intent to use them: up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail. Possession of fewer than 10 such items is also criminal under § 12, with the same maximum penalty range, although the case-in-chief is harder for the Commonwealth to prove without the volume-based statutory presumption.
Possession cases turn on knowledge and intent. The Commonwealth must prove the defendant knew the items were false and intended to use or pass them. Defendants who unknowingly received counterfeit currency in change, who possessed counterfeit items as collectibles or curiosities, or who held counterfeit items obtained from a third party without knowledge of their falsity have legitimate defenses. The volume threshold matters: possession of 10 or more raises a stronger inference of intent to use, but even at 10 or more the inference is rebuttable.
Possession cases turn on knowledge and intent. The Commonwealth must prove the defendant knew the items were false and intended to use or pass them. Defendants who unknowingly received counterfeit currency in change, who possessed counterfeit items as collectibles or curiosities, or who held counterfeit items obtained from a third party without knowledge of their falsity have legitimate defenses. The volume threshold matters: possession of 10 or more raises a stronger inference of intent to use, but even at 10 or more the inference is rebuttable.
Possession of Counterfeiting Tools or Materials
Possession of tools or materials for counterfeiting under M.G.L. c. 267, § 13 criminalizes possession of plates, dies, paper, or other materials used to make counterfeit notes, certificates, bills, or traveler's checks, when held with intent to use them in counterfeiting. The penalty is up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail.
Modern counterfeiting cases under this statute often involve digital reproduction equipment, professional-grade printers, specialty paper, and software designed to produce false documents. The intent element is again critical: legitimate possession of printers, design software, or specialty paper for commercial or artistic purposes is not a crime. The Commonwealth must connect the items to a specific intent to make counterfeit currency or instruments.
Modern counterfeiting cases under this statute often involve digital reproduction equipment, professional-grade printers, specialty paper, and software designed to produce false documents. The intent element is again critical: legitimate possession of printers, design software, or specialty paper for commercial or artistic purposes is not a crime. The Commonwealth must connect the items to a specific intent to make counterfeit currency or instruments.
Potential Consequences Under Massachusetts Law
We know you are already worried about what could happen, particularly given that nearly every offense in this category carries up to 10 years in state prison. The exact consequences depend on which statute is charged, the type and value of the document at issue, and whether the case is a single incident or part of a pattern.
All of the major forgery, uttering, and counterfeiting offenses in M.G.L. c. 267 are felonies, with maximum sentences of up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail or the house of correction. Restitution is typically ordered upon conviction for the full amount of any loss caused, often with interest. Where forgery or uttering is charged alongside larceny, fraud, or embezzlement, the same conduct can produce multiple convictions and consecutive sentencing exposure.
Beyond direct sentencing, forgery and uttering convictions are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude and as crimes of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, meaning they remain admissible to impeach credibility for at least 10 years. They are particularly damaging to professional licenses in finance, banking, real estate, accounting, law, and any role involving documents or trust. Federal employment, security clearances, and bonded positions are typically foreclosed. Non-citizens face deportation consequences for forgery and uttering convictions, particularly where the alleged loss exceeds $10,000, which makes the offense an aggravated felony under federal immigration law.
A charge is not a conviction. Forgery and uttering cases turn on contested questions of intent, knowledge of falsity, and authority to act. The Commonwealth carries the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof is often built from documents, handwriting analysis, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence that can be challenged.
All of the major forgery, uttering, and counterfeiting offenses in M.G.L. c. 267 are felonies, with maximum sentences of up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail or the house of correction. Restitution is typically ordered upon conviction for the full amount of any loss caused, often with interest. Where forgery or uttering is charged alongside larceny, fraud, or embezzlement, the same conduct can produce multiple convictions and consecutive sentencing exposure.
Beyond direct sentencing, forgery and uttering convictions are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude and as crimes of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, meaning they remain admissible to impeach credibility for at least 10 years. They are particularly damaging to professional licenses in finance, banking, real estate, accounting, law, and any role involving documents or trust. Federal employment, security clearances, and bonded positions are typically foreclosed. Non-citizens face deportation consequences for forgery and uttering convictions, particularly where the alleged loss exceeds $10,000, which makes the offense an aggravated felony under federal immigration law.
A charge is not a conviction. Forgery and uttering cases turn on contested questions of intent, knowledge of falsity, and authority to act. The Commonwealth carries the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof is often built from documents, handwriting analysis, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence that can be challenged.
Possible Defenses Under Massachusetts Law
Right now this may feel hopeless, especially if there is a document with your signature on it or surveillance footage of you presenting it. There are real defenses available across the entire forgery and uttering category, and the Commonwealth's burden on intent and knowledge is high. Possible defenses include:
Lack of intent to injure or defraud. Both forgery and uttering require specific intent to injure or defraud. Honest mistake, signing on behalf of another with believed authority, presenting a document believed to be valid, and good faith dispute over authenticity all defeat this element.
Lack of knowledge of falsity. For uttering and counterfeit currency cases, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant knew the document or currency was false. Defendants who received forged checks from third parties, who unknowingly accepted counterfeit currency in transactions, or who reasonably believed documents were genuine are not guilty of uttering.
Authority to sign or alter. Many forgery cases involve signatures or alterations made under claimed authority. Powers of attorney, agency relationships, prior course of dealing, and verbal authorization can all defeat the falsity element. The line between authorized and unauthorized signing is often the central battleground.
Mistaken identification. Many uttering and counterfeit cases turn on identification from surveillance footage of variable quality or from witnesses with brief observations under stress. Massachusetts courts have repeatedly recognized the unreliability of identification evidence.
Document not within the statute. Forgery and uttering statutes apply only to specific categories of documents. Where the document at issue does not fall within the statutory list (or where the alteration is to a non-material part), the offense may not be charged at all.
No actual or attempted utterance. For uttering charges, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant uttered or attempted to utter the document. Mere possession is not uttering, and conduct short of actual presentation may not satisfy the element.
Civil dispute, not crime. Many cases involving altered or disputed documents reflect underlying business or family disputes, not criminal intent. Disputes over the proper interpretation of contracts, ambiguous instructions, or contested signatures often belong in civil court rather than criminal court.
Constitutional violations. Searches that produce documents, statements made during banking or merchant inquiries, and identification procedures must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Successful suppression motions often dismantle forgery prosecutions where the case depends on the seized documents or statements.
Charge reduction strategies. Many forgery and uttering cases can be reduced to misdemeanor charges, to attempted offenses, or to non-criminal civil resolutions depending on what the evidence supports.
Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.
Lack of intent to injure or defraud. Both forgery and uttering require specific intent to injure or defraud. Honest mistake, signing on behalf of another with believed authority, presenting a document believed to be valid, and good faith dispute over authenticity all defeat this element.
Lack of knowledge of falsity. For uttering and counterfeit currency cases, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant knew the document or currency was false. Defendants who received forged checks from third parties, who unknowingly accepted counterfeit currency in transactions, or who reasonably believed documents were genuine are not guilty of uttering.
Authority to sign or alter. Many forgery cases involve signatures or alterations made under claimed authority. Powers of attorney, agency relationships, prior course of dealing, and verbal authorization can all defeat the falsity element. The line between authorized and unauthorized signing is often the central battleground.
Mistaken identification. Many uttering and counterfeit cases turn on identification from surveillance footage of variable quality or from witnesses with brief observations under stress. Massachusetts courts have repeatedly recognized the unreliability of identification evidence.
Document not within the statute. Forgery and uttering statutes apply only to specific categories of documents. Where the document at issue does not fall within the statutory list (or where the alteration is to a non-material part), the offense may not be charged at all.
No actual or attempted utterance. For uttering charges, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant uttered or attempted to utter the document. Mere possession is not uttering, and conduct short of actual presentation may not satisfy the element.
Civil dispute, not crime. Many cases involving altered or disputed documents reflect underlying business or family disputes, not criminal intent. Disputes over the proper interpretation of contracts, ambiguous instructions, or contested signatures often belong in civil court rather than criminal court.
Constitutional violations. Searches that produce documents, statements made during banking or merchant inquiries, and identification procedures must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Successful suppression motions often dismantle forgery prosecutions where the case depends on the seized documents or statements.
Charge reduction strategies. Many forgery and uttering cases can be reduced to misdemeanor charges, to attempted offenses, or to non-criminal civil resolutions depending on what the evidence supports.
Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.
If You've Just Been Charged with Forgery or Uttering
If you have just been arrested, released, or received a summons or target letter, take a breath. Here is what you need to do right now.
● Don't talk to police or to bank, merchant, or insurance investigators without a lawyer present, even if you are told you can clear things up by giving your side of the story
● Don't sign anything presented by a bank, merchant, or alleged victim, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
● Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment can be the right strategy in some cases, but it must be timed and structured carefully so it does not become evidence of fraudulent intent
● Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including coworkers, family members, or anyone who might later be interviewed
● Don't destroy or alter documents related to the alleged forgery, even if they look bad. Spoliation of evidence creates additional charges and converts a defensible case into an obstruction case
● Preserve all relevant records including emails, text messages, financial statements, original documents, and anything that might show authority, course of dealing, or third-party involvement
● Write down everything you remember about the relevant transactions, who was present, what was said, and the source of the documents at issue
● Don't post anything about your case, the alleged victim, the investigation, or your finances on social media
● Contact an experienced Massachusetts forgery and uttering defense attorney as soon as possible
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation 24/7.
Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.
● Don't talk to police or to bank, merchant, or insurance investigators without a lawyer present, even if you are told you can clear things up by giving your side of the story
● Don't sign anything presented by a bank, merchant, or alleged victim, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
● Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment can be the right strategy in some cases, but it must be timed and structured carefully so it does not become evidence of fraudulent intent
● Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including coworkers, family members, or anyone who might later be interviewed
● Don't destroy or alter documents related to the alleged forgery, even if they look bad. Spoliation of evidence creates additional charges and converts a defensible case into an obstruction case
● Preserve all relevant records including emails, text messages, financial statements, original documents, and anything that might show authority, course of dealing, or third-party involvement
● Write down everything you remember about the relevant transactions, who was present, what was said, and the source of the documents at issue
● Don't post anything about your case, the alleged victim, the investigation, or your finances on social media
● Contact an experienced Massachusetts forgery and uttering defense attorney as soon as possible
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation 24/7.
Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.
“I would absolutely recommend Ernie to anyone.”
He was more than just my lawyer. He was my guardian angel during a very scary and desperate time in my life. He walked with me every step of the way and looked out for my best interest at every twist and turn. He stayed available seven days a week and within moments of my reaching out to him. I will be indebted to him forever. I knew I was in safe hands even though my matter kept me in constant fear. He gave me the courage to keep pushing forward and spent countless hours cheerleading me through an unspeakable experience.
Diane
"Attorney Stone was excellent."
He was extremely knowledgeable and knew his way around the Diversion Program and the Court. He gave us all the information and potential results upfront. He explained the entire process to us from start to finish and he mapped out a plan of action that resulted in a favorable outcome for my child. I would recommend Attorney Stone 100 percent. Thanks to him my child has no criminal record.
Lisa
"I knew Ernie was the real deal."
I knew the moment I spoke to Ernie on the phone he was the real deal. He made us feel at ease during a very stressful time and fought for us. We won our case because of his perseverance and professionalism. He’s just a really good person who’s in your corner fighting for you. Thanks Ernie you’re the best!!!!
Cheryl
"I can't say enough about Ernie and his team. "
They helped our family navigate a very delicate and complicated legal situation. We couldn't be more pleased with the outcome. And Ernie's down-to-earth demeanor helped us feel like we were being listened to and never being talked down to. I would highly recommend Ernie, as I am certain he would do his absolute best to achieve a best-case-scenario outcome for every single one of his clients.
R. H.
"Much love and appreciation to this group"
I would recommend them to anyone. From the first call I knew this was the right choice. Ernie kept my best interests in mind when representing me with results better than expected! I can’t thank them enough. Special shout-out to Joanne who is truly the nicest person. Their whole vibe was homely like family. Much love and appreciation to this group... even the 4 legged nugget running around their office.
A. R.
"I was in good hands..."
Before working with Ernie I was very unaware of how my future would be and felt alone in my case; that all changed once I had Ernie Stone as my lawyer. Very professional, very reassuring, very caring and helpful with any questions you may have. I can definitely say that there was always a smile on their faces and made me feel welcomed and well taken care of. I had no doubt in mind that I was in good hands and that I was going to be alright.
R. J.
What to Expect When You Call
We know this call is hard to make. You may feel embarrassed, worried about your career or your bank account, or unsure of what to say. That is okay. You do not need to have the right words.
● We will listen to your story and answer your questions
● We will explain the specific forgery or uttering charge and what the Commonwealth must prove
● We will discuss possible defense strategies and resolution options for your specific situation
● We will explain how an investigation might be addressed before formal charges issue
● We will explain our approach and how we can help you through this
● Everything you tell us is confidential There is no obligation to hire us
You do not need to have the answers. Just call, and we will take it from there. Phones answered 24/7 by a real person. Free, confidential consultation.
● We will listen to your story and answer your questions
● We will explain the specific forgery or uttering charge and what the Commonwealth must prove
● We will discuss possible defense strategies and resolution options for your specific situation
● We will explain how an investigation might be addressed before formal charges issue
● We will explain our approach and how we can help you through this
● Everything you tell us is confidential There is no obligation to hire us
You do not need to have the answers. Just call, and we will take it from there. Phones answered 24/7 by a real person. Free, confidential consultation.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Forgery and uttering charges demand experienced legal representation. We can help you through this storm.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Over 30 years of Massachusetts criminal defense experience. Serving Essex County and Eastern Massachusetts including Beverly, Salem, Lynn, Peabody, Gloucester, Newburyport, Lawrence, and Haverhill.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Over 30 years of Massachusetts criminal defense experience. Serving Essex County and Eastern Massachusetts including Beverly, Salem, Lynn, Peabody, Gloucester, Newburyport, Lawrence, and Haverhill.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Contact our team today for a free consultation. We are available 24/7.
