The MCM states any service member may be subject to prosecution under Article 105 (Forgery) if they, with intent to defraud:
falsely make or alter any signature to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or
utter, offer, issue, or transfer such writing known by him to be so made or altered.
To be prosecuted for forgery, explicitly referring to the making or altering, the prosecution must demonstrate:
the accused falsely made or altered a specific signature or writing;
the signature or writing was of a nature which would, if genuine, apparently impose legal liability on another or change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice; and
the false making or altering was with the intent to defraud.
A charge of forgery-uttering must prove the following:
a specific signature or writing was falsely made or altered;
the signature or writing was of a nature that would, if genuine, apparently impose legal liability on another or change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice;
the accused uttered, offered, issued, or transferred the signature or writing;
at such time, the accused knew that the signature or writing had been falsely made or altered; and
the uttering, offering, issuing, or transferring was with the intent to defraud.
Understanding Article 105 (Forgery) of the UCMJ
Forgery may be committed either by falsely making a writing or by knowingly uttering a falsely made writing. There are three elements common to both aspects of forgery: a writing falsely made or altered; an apparent capability of the writing as falsely made or altered to impose a legal liability on another or to change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice; and an intent to defraud.
The intent to defraud need not be directed toward anyone in particular or for the offender’s advantage. It is irrelevant if no one was fooled or that no further step was made toward carrying out the intent to defraud other than the false making or altering of a writing.
False does not refer to the contents of the written information or the facts it may or may not contain but instead to making or altering the contents. Signing the name of another to an instrument having apparent legal value without authority and with the intent to defraud is a forgery as the signature is falsely made.
The nature of the writing is essential when determining if a charge of forgery is applicable. The writing must be one that would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change that person’s legal rights or liabilities. A falsely “made” writing includes an instrument that may be partially or entirely printed, engraved, written with a pencil, or made by photography or other device. A writing may be falsely “made” by materially altering an existing writing, by filling in a paper signed in blank, or by signing an instrument already written. Writing may be falsely “made” by materially altering an existing writing, filling in a paper signed in blank, or Concerning the apparent legal efficacy of the writing falsely made or changed, the writing must appear either on its face or from extrinsic facts to impose a legal liability on another or to change a legal right or liability to the prejudice of another. The alteration must effect a material change in the legal tenor of the writing. Thus, an alteration that increases, diminishes, or discharges any obligation is material.
Maximum Possible Punishment for Violations of Article 105
Service members convicted of an Article 85 violation face a maximum punishment of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and forced confinement of up to 5 years.
How do you defend against Article 105 Forgery charges?
When facing the combined resources of the military and the current cultural climate, you need to be prepared to defend your career and your freedom. Crisp and Associates, LLC has a team of experienced trial attorneys who have won these cases. This team includes the firm’s founder, Jonathan Crisp, a highly respected former Army JAG with over 23 years of experience in military law and a sought-after speaker and lecturer on martial law. Donald Gordon has litigated cases before the Discharge Review Board, the Board for Correction of Military Records, and the Board for Correction of Naval Records regarding various matters and a diverse background of clients.
If you or someone you know is facing Article 105 charges for Forgery, you must immediately speak with a Military defense attorney.
