Uttering Forged Document
Uttering a forged document is the offence, under section 368 of the Criminal Code, of dealing with a forged document — using it, offering it, exchanging it, dealing with it, or acting on it — as if it were genuine. The offence covers a wide range of conduct involving forged documents, from cashing a forged cheque to presenting a forged ID. Uttering is hybrid: summary maximum 2 years less a day; indictable maximum 10 years (or 14 years on indictment for the related forgery offence under section 366).
Mass Tsang's fraud and white-collar lawyers handle uttering and forgery charges across the GTA. For more on related offences, see our blog post on fraud charges in Ontario.
Elements
The Crown must prove: (1) the document was forged within the meaning of section 366 (made or altered with intent that it be used as genuine, or to deceive); (2) the accused dealt with the document (used, presented, offered, exchanged, transferred, or acted on it); (3) the accused knew it was forged at the time of the conduct; and (4) the accused acted with intent to defraud or with intent that the document be used or acted on as if genuine. Knowledge and intent are the central mens rea requirements.
Relationship to forgery
Forgery (section 366) is the making or altering of a false document. Uttering (section 368) is the using of a false document. The two offences are often charged together — the person who forges the document and then uses it commits both. But uttering is also charged on its own where someone uses a document forged by another and knows of the forgery.
Common scenarios
Uttering charges commonly arise from: forged cheques, money orders, or bank drafts; forged identification (passports, driver's licences); forged employment letters, tax documents, or income verification; forged immigration documents; forged academic credentials; forged property and title documents; and digital forgeries (altered emails, contracts, electronic signatures). The breadth of the offence captures both physical and digital documents.
Defences
Defences include: lack of knowledge that the document was forged (an honest belief in its authenticity); the document was not actually forged (the underlying section 366 element fails); identification (the accused was not the person who uttered the document); colour of right or lawful authority; and Charter challenges to the investigation. Many cases turn on the knowledge question — whether the accused knew the document was forged at the time they used it.
Sentencing
Sentences for uttering depend on the underlying fraud, the value involved, the sophistication of the scheme, and the accused's record. First-offender, low-value matters can attract discharges, peace bonds, or short conditional sentences. Sophisticated or large-scale fraud schemes involving uttering attract federal time. Restitution orders are routine.
Related glossary terms
