The presumption for Theft by Check or Similar Sight Order applies to which scenario?

• A. Presumption for Theft by Check or Similar Sight Order
• B. Presumption of Forgery
• C. Presumption of Larceny by Check
• D. Presumption of Fraud

Answer: (A)

In theft by check cases, there is an evidentiary presumption that the issuer intended to defraud. This presumption kicks in when someone issues a check or a similar sight order for the payment of money and knows there are insufficient funds or that the instrument will not be paid. If the payee accepts the instrument and it is later dishonored, the fact that the issuer knew the funds weren’t available allows an inference of fraudulent intent, which supports a theft by check finding. The scenario that triggers this presumption is issuing a check or similar sight order with knowledge that funds are unavailable or the check won’t be paid. This is why it’s not about forgery or general fraud; the special presumption directly addresses the situation involving a check or equivalent instrument.