Issuing a check without sufficient funds is prima facie evidence of the issuer's intent to deprive the owner. Which option describes this situation?

• A. Paying the check in full
• B. Issuing a check without sufficient funds
• C. Providing a post-dated check
• D. Paying cash on delivery

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that writing a check when there aren’t enough funds to cover it is treated as evidence of the intent to deprive the recipient. In this context, that act itself creates prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent, meaning the law allows an inference of intent to defraud from issuing the check. Therefore, the situation described is issuing a check without sufficient funds, which directly matches the scenario that the statute uses to establish this presumptive intent.

Paying the check in full or paying cash on delivery would show funds exist and are being honored, not an intent to deprive. A post-dated check can be used with funds later but doesn’t by itself demonstrate insufficiency at the time of issue, so it doesn’t describe the same situation.