Forgery and uttering are two halves of the same problem, and Florida charges them separately in chapter 831. Forgery, under section 831.01, is falsely making or altering a document with intent to injure or defraud. Uttering a forged instrument, under section 831.02, is passing or presenting that document as genuine, knowing it is false, with intent to defraud. The classic case, a person signing someone else’s name to a check and then cashing it, can be both offenses at once.
Both are third-degree felonies, and both are treated as crimes of dishonesty, which gives a conviction a long tail. It surfaces on background checks and can be used to attack a person’s credibility for years. That makes the knowledge and intent elements worth fighting hard, because the line between a crime and an honest mistake is exactly what the statute turns on.
The Two Offenses Side by Side
The split matters because the proof is different. Forgery is about making or altering the document. Uttering is about presenting it. A person can commit one without the other, and the State often charges both to cover its bases, which is where the knowledge element becomes decisive.
| Offense | What it is | Degree |
|---|---|---|
| Forgery (831.01) | Falsely making or altering a document with intent to injure or defraud | Third-degree felony |
| Uttering a forged instrument (831.02) | Passing a forged instrument as genuine, knowing it is false, with intent to defraud | Third-degree felony |
| Counterfeiting checks and payment instruments (ch. 831) | Making, possessing, or passing counterfeit checks, bills, or payment instruments | Commonly third-degree felony |
For uttering, the State does not have to prove anyone was in fact defrauded. It does have to prove the defendant in fact knew the instrument was forged, not merely that he should have known.
Earlier in my career, my practice was almost entirely white-collar defense, including fraud cases, conspiracy charges, and a statewide racketeering prosecution. That work shaped how I read these files: where the money really moved, what the State can prove about intent, and where a paper case quietly falls apart. I defend the state-level side of these matters here in Florida. When a case is federal, or turns federal, I bring in or refer trusted federal co-counsel so you are covered on both tracks rather than caught between them. Learn more about my background.
Knowledge Is the Battleground
For uttering, the knowledge element is strict. It is not enough for the State to show a defendant should have known the instrument was forged. The State must prove he in fact knew. Florida courts have held that a person who possesses a forged instrument in good faith and passes it does not commit uttering, which is a real and meaningful defense for someone who was handed a check, a title, or a document and presented it without knowing it was bad.
That principle reaches a lot of ordinary situations: an employee who deposits a check from an employer, a person who passes a document prepared by someone else, a buyer who presents a title that turns out to be altered. In each, the question is what the person knew, and the State carries that burden. Intent to defraud rides alongside knowledge, and a presentation made without any intent to defraud is not uttering either.
The Evidence and the Documents
Forgery and uttering cases are proven through the document and through the surrounding circumstances. The State often leans on handwriting comparison, expert opinion, surveillance from a bank or a store, and the chain that connects a person to the making or the passing of the instrument. The instruments themselves range widely, from checks and money orders to contracts, titles, identification, and other papers that carry legal or financial weight.
Counterfeiting sits beside forgery in chapter 831, covering the making, possession, or passing of counterfeit checks and payment instruments, and it is charged in much the same way. Across all of these, the proof of knowledge is usually circumstantial, built from inference rather than direct evidence that a person knew an instrument was false. That inference is exactly what the actual-knowledge requirement lets the defense attack, especially when the document came from someone else and was passed without any reason to doubt it.
How a Forgery Case Is Defended
The defense is built on the two mental elements. Developing the good-faith account, the source of the document, and the absence of any reason to doubt it goes straight at the actual-knowledge requirement. Where the State’s proof of knowledge is an inference from circumstances, that inference can be challenged, especially when someone else created the instrument.
Handwriting and document evidence is the other front. The State frequently relies on comparisons and expert opinion to tie a person to the making or the passing, and that evidence can be tested for reliability and foundation. Because these are crimes of dishonesty with lasting collateral consequences, resolving them through a reduction to a non-dishonesty offense, diversion, or dismissal is often worth as much as the sentence itself.
Common Questions
What is the difference between forgery and uttering?
Forgery under section 831.01 is falsely making or altering a document with intent to injure or defraud. Uttering under section 831.02 is passing or presenting that forged document as genuine, knowing it is false, with intent to defraud. They are separate offenses and both are third-degree felonies.
Does the State have to prove the forgery worked?
No. For uttering, presenting the forged instrument with intent to defraud is enough, even if no one was fooled. A forged check handed to a teller who catches it can still support the charge.
What does the State have to prove about my knowledge?
For uttering, that you knew the instrument was forged, not merely that you should have known. Florida courts draw that line clearly, and a person who possesses and passes a forged instrument in good faith does not commit uttering.
What kinds of documents count?
A wide range, including checks, contracts, identification, titles, and other instruments that carry legal or financial weight. Counterfeiting checks and payment instruments falls under related sections of chapter 831 and is charged similarly.
Is this a crime of dishonesty?
Yes, and that matters beyond the sentence. Forgery and uttering are treated as crimes of dishonesty, so a conviction shows up on background checks and can be used to question credibility, which is one more reason to fight the charge rather than absorb it.
Related: White collar and fraud overview, Credit card fraud, Theft and economic crimes, Scheme to defraud and organized fraud, and About Rory Safir.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. These offenses are governed by chapters 817, 831, 895, and 896, and section 775.0844, Florida Statutes, and many of the same facts can also draw federal charges, so the exposure should be confirmed against current state and federal law. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
