Maine § 17-A §708 Negotiating a worthless instrument

Maine Statutes

§ 17-A §708 — Negotiating a worthless instrument

Maine § 17-A §708

Title 17-AMAINE CRIMINAL CODE

Part 2SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES

Ch. 29FORGERY AND RELATED OFFENSES

This text of Maine § 17-A §708 (Negotiating a worthless instrument) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 17-A §708 (2026).

Text

1.A person is guilty of negotiating a worthless instrument if:

2.Proof of the following gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 that the person issuing or negotiating the instrument knew that it would not be honored: 2-A. The following evidentiary provisions apply.

3.As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. 3-A. Amounts of face value of negotiable instruments involved in violations of this section committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the instruments were issued or negotiated to the same person or several persons, may be aggregated to charge a single violation of this section of appropriate class. Subject to the requirement that the conduct of the d

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1.
A person is guilty of negotiating a worthless instrument if:
2.
Proof of the following gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 that the person issuing or negotiating the instrument knew that it would not be honored:
2-A.
The following evidentiary provisions apply.
3.
As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
3-A.
Amounts of face value of negotiable instruments involved in violations of this section committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the instruments were issued or negotiated to the same person or several persons, may be aggregated to charge a single violation of this section of appropriate class. Subject to the requirement that the conduct of the defense may not be prejudiced by lack of fair notice or by surprise, the court may at any time order that a single aggregated count be considered as separate violations of this section. An aggregated count of violations of this section may not be deemed duplicitous because of such an order and no election may be required. Prosecution may be brought in any venue in which one of the violations of this section that have been aggregated was committed.
4.

Legislative History

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §79 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 510, §59 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 317, §22 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 198, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 186 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 38, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 224, §7 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 253, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §§77-81 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 389, §7 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D15 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D36 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 1, §6 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 476, §28 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 504, §1 (AMD). RR 2011, c. 2, §15 (COR).