Part IV · Punitive Articles
Article 105. Forgery · MCM ¶ 37
2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
See all changes(a) Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to defraud—
(1) falsely makes or alters any signature to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or
(2) utters, offers, issues, or transfers such a writing, known by him to be so made or altered;
is guilty of forgery and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Elements.
(1) Forgery—making or altering.
(a) That the accused falsely made or altered a certain signature or writing;
(b) That the signature or writing was of a nature which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice; and
(c) That the false making or altering was with the intent to defraud.
(2) Forgery—uttering.
(a) That a certain signature or writing was falsely made or altered;
(b) That the signature or writing was of a nature which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice;
(c) That the accused uttered, offered, issued, or transferred the signature or writing;
(d) That at such time the accused knew that the signature or writing had been falsely made or altered; and
(e) That the uttering, offering, issuing or transferring was with the intent to defraud.
(c) Explanation .
(1) In general. Forgery may be committed either by falsely making a writing or by knowingly uttering a falsely made writing. There are three elements common to both aspects of forgery: a writing falsely made or altered; an apparent capability of the writing as falsely made or altered to impose a legal liability on another or to change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice; and an intent to defraud.
(2) False. “False” refers not to the contents of the writing or to the facts stated therein but to the making or altering of it. Hence, forgery is not committed by the genuine making of a false instrument even when made with intent to defraud. A person who, with intent to defraud, signs that person’s own signature as the maker of a check drawn on a bank in which that person does not have money or credit does not commit forgery. Although the check falsely represents the existence of the account, it is what it purports to be, a check drawn by the actual maker, and therefore it is not falsely made. But see paragraph 70. Likewise, if a person makes a false signature of another to an instrument, but adds the word “by” with that person’s own signature thus indicating authority to sign, the offense is not forgery even if no such authority exists. False recitals of fact in a genuine document, as an aircraft flight report which is “padded” by the one preparing it, do not make the writing a forgery. But see paragraph 41 concerning false official statements.
(3) Signatures. Signing the name of another to an instrument having apparent legal efficacy without authority and with intent to defraud is forgery as the signature is falsely made. The distinction is that in this case the falsely made signature purports to be the act of one other than the actual signer. Likewise, a forgery may be committed by a person signing that person’s own name to an instrument. For example, when a check payable to the order of a certain person comes into the hands of another of the same name, forgery is committed if, knowing the check to be another’s, that person indorses it with that person’s own name intending to defraud. Forgery may also be committed by signing a fictitious name, as when Roe makes a check payable to Roe and signs it with a fictitious name—Doe—as drawer.
(4) Nature of writing. The writing must be one which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another, as a check or promissory note, or change that person’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice, as a receipt. Some other instruments which may be the subject of forgery are orders for the delivery of money or goods, railroad tickets, and military orders directing travel. A writing falsely “made” includes an instrument that may be partially or entirely printed, engraved, written with a pencil, or made by photography or other device. A writing may be falsely “made” by materially altering an existing writing, by filling in a paper signed in blank, or by signing an instrument already written. With respect to the apparent legal efficacy of the writing falsely made or altered, the writing must appear either on its face or from extrinsic facts to impose a legal liability on another, or to change a legal right or liability to the prejudice of another. If under all the circumstances the instrument has neither real nor apparent legal efficacy, there is no forgery. Thus, the false making with intent to defraud of an instrument affirmatively invalid on its face is not forgery nor is the false making or altering, with intent to defraud, of a writing which could not impose a legal liability, as a mere letter of introduction. However, the false making of another’s signature on an instrument with intent to defraud is forgery, even if there is no resemblance to the genuine signature and the name is misspelled.
(5) Intent to defraud. See subparagraph 70.c.(14). The intent to defraud need not be directed toward anyone in particular nor be for the advantage of the offender. It is immaterial that nobody was actually defrauded, or that no further step was made toward carrying out the intent to defraud other than the false making or altering of a writing.
(6) Alteration. The alteration must effect a material change in the legal tenor of the writing. Thus, an alteration which apparently increases, diminishes, or discharges any obligation is material. Examples of material alterations in the case of a promissory note are changing the date, amount, or place of payment. If a genuine writing has been delivered to the accused and while in the accused’s possession is later found to be altered, it may be inferred that the writing was altered by the accused.
(7) Uttering. See subparagraph 70.c.(4).
(d) Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
(e) Sample specification s.
(1) Forgery—making or altering. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, with intent to defraud, falsely [make (in its entirety) (the signature of __________ as an indorsement to) (the signature of _____ to) (_____) a certain (check) (writing) (_____) in the following words and figures, to wit: _____ ] [alter a certain (check) (writing) (_____) in the following words and figures, to wit: _____, by (adding thereto _____) (_____) ], which said (check) (writing) (_____) would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another [*and which _____ (could be) (was) used to the legal harm of _____, in that _____ ].
Practice Note
[*Note: This allegation should be used when the document specified is not one which by its nature would clearly operate to the legal prejudice of another—for example, an insurance application. The manner in which the document could be or was used to prejudice the legal rights of another should be alleged in the last blank.]
(2) Forgery—uttering. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, with intent to defraud, (utter) (offer) (issue) (transfer) a certain (check) (writing) (__________) in the following words and figures, to wit: __________, a writing which would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another, (which said (check) (writing) (_____)) (the signature to which said (check) (writing) (_____)) (_____) was, as (he) (she), the said _____, then well knew, falsely (made) (altered) (*and which _____ (could be) (was) used to the legal harm of _____, in that _____).
Practice Note
[*Note: See the note following (1), of subparagraph e.]
Information on this tab is reproduced from the U.S. Army Military Judges’ Benchbook (Electronic Benchbook v2.70, updated 2026-05-26). It is for informational purposes only to compare to the text on the Manual for Courts-Martial on the MCM tab. Always check the current EBB to make sure you’re reviewing the most recent information.
NOTE 1. If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.
Maximum punishment
DD, TF, 5 years, E-1. (Category 2)
Sample specification
In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), on or about __________, with intent to defraud, falsely [make (in its entirety) (the signature of __________ as an indorsement to) (the signature of __________ to) (__________) a certain (check) (writing) (__________) in the following words and figures, to wit: __________] [alter a certain (check) (writing) (__________) in the following words and figures, to wit: __________, by (adding thereto __________) (__________)], which said (check) (writing) (__________) would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another [and which __________ (could be) (was) used to the legal harm of __________, in that __________.]
NOTE 2. Used to legal harm alleged. The language contained in the last set of brackets in the sample specification should be used when the document specified is not one which by its nature would clearly operate to the legal prejudice of another—for example, an insurance application. The manner in which the document could be or was used to prejudice the legal rights of another should be alleged in the last blank.
Elements
(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused falsely (made) (altered) a certain [(signature to a) (check) (writing) (_______)] [part of a (check) (writing) (__________)], to wit: (describe the signature, part of a writing, or writing allegedly falsely made or altered);
(2) That the (signature) (check) (writing) (__________) was of a nature which would, if genuine, apparently (impose a legal liability on another) (or) (change another’s legal rights or liabilities to his/her prejudice) (in that (here, if alleged, set forth the manner in which the legal status of another could be or was allegedly harmed)); and
(3) That the accused (made) (altered) the false (signature) (check) (writing) (______) with the intent to defraud.
Definitions & other instructions
“Falsely (made) (altered)” means an unauthorized signing of a document or an unauthorized (making) (altering) of the writing which causes it to appear to be different from what it really is.
“Intent to defraud” means an intent to obtain an article or thing of value through a misrepresentation and to apply it to one’s own use and benefit or the use and benefit of another, whether temporarily or permanently.
NOTE 3. When alleging means by which legal harm could ensue is required. Unless it is clear from the nature of the writing in what manner it is capable of affecting the legal rights of another, extrinsic facts must be alleged in the specification showing how the writing could be, or was in fact used to affect such legal rights.
A writing would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal duty on another or change his/her legal right, duty, or liability to his/her harm if the writing is capable of (paying an obligation) (delaying) (increasing) (diminishing) (or) (releasing a person from an obligation) (or) (transferring to another) (__________) a legal right.
NOTE 4. No evidence of actual defrauding. When there is no evidence that anyone was defrauded or that the accused did anything other than falsely make or alter a document, the following instruction should be given:
The third element of this offense requires an intent to defraud. The fact (that no one was actually defrauded) (and) (that no further action was taken with the document other than the false (making) (altering) of the writing) (and) (that no one received any benefit) is unimportant.
NOTE 5. Lack of intent raised. When there is evidence that the accused did not intend to defraud, or operated under a state of mind inconsistent with an intent to defraud, the military judge should instruct on such evidence. For example, when the defense theory is that the accused intended simply to deceive and not to defraud and is, therefore, not guilty of the offense of forgery, the members must be advised of the distinctions between the intent to defraud and the intent to deceive, and that an intent to deceive unaccompanied by an intent to deprive another of something of value is not the requisite intent for the offense of forgery. The following is a suggested general approach:
There is evidence in this case which raises the issue of whether there was a lack of intent to defraud. (The accused has testified that (he) (she)) (There is evidence to the effect that the accused) (had no intent to defraud) (intended only to deceive) (completed the alleged forgery with a belief that (he) (she) was dealing in (his) (her) own property) (completed the alleged forgery with a belief that (he) (she) was acting under proper authority) (_________). (On the other hand, there is evidence that (here outline facts which support an inference of intent to defraud). More than a mere intent to deceive is required.
An intent to deceive is an intent to cheat, to trick, or to misrepresent. An intent to defraud, however, is a misrepresentation intended to cause some loss of an item of value to another or the gain of an item of value for oneself or another, either temporarily or permanently.
NOTE 6. Permissible inference instruction. When it appears that a writing was altered while in the exclusive possession of the accused, and that it was one in which the accused had an interest, the following suggested instruction on the permissible inference that the accused altered the writing may be given:
If the facts demonstrate that the writing described in the specification was in the exclusive possession of the accused, that (he) (she) had an interest in the writing, in the sense that (he) (she) stood to benefit from an alteration, and that while in the accused’s exclusive possession the alteration was made, you may infer that the accused made the alteration. The drawing of this inference is not required.
NOTE 7. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent), is ordinarily applicable. Instruction 6-5, Partial Mental Responsibility, Instruction 5-15, Evidence Negating Mens Rea, and Instruction 5-21, Voluntary Intoxication, as bearing on the issue of the specific intent to defraud, may be applicable.
Source: Instruction 3a-37-1 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil
NOTE 1. If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.
Maximum punishment
DD, TF, 5 years, E-1. (Category 2)
Sample specification
In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), on or about __________, with intent to defraud, (utter) (offer) (issue) (transfer) a certain (check) (writing) (__________) in the following words and figures, to wit: __________, a writing which would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another, (which said (check) (writing) (__________)) (the signature to which said (check) (writing) (__________)) (__________) was, as (he) (she), the said __________, then well knew, falsely (made) (altered) (and which __________ (could be) (was) used to the legal harm of __________, in that __________).
NOTE 2. Used to legal harm alleged. The language contained in the last set of brackets in the sample specification should be used when the document specified is not one which by its nature would clearly operate to the legal prejudice of another—for example, an insurance application. The manner in which the document could be or was used to prejudice the legal rights of another should be alleged in the last blank.
Elements
(1) That a certain [signature to a (check) (writing) (_________)] [part of a (check) (writing) (__________)] [(check) (writing) (__________)] was falsely (made) (altered), to wit: (describe the signature, part of a writing, or writing allegedly falsely made or altered);
(2) That the (signature) (check) (writing) (__________) was of a nature which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change another’s legal rights or liabilities to that person’s prejudice [in that (here, if alleged, set forth the manner in which the legal status of another could be or was allegedly harmed)];
(3) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused (uttered) (offered) (issued) (transferred) this (signature) (check) (writing) (__________);
(4) That, at such time, the accused knew that the (signature) (check) (writing) (__________) had been falsely (made) (altered); and
(5) That the accused (uttered) (offered) (issued) (transferred) the (signature) (check) (writing) (__________) with the intent to defraud.
Definitions & other instructions
“Falsely (made) (altered)” means an unauthorized signing of a document or an unauthorized (making) (altering) of the writing which causes it to appear to be different from what it really is.
“Intent to defraud” means an intent to obtain an article or thing of value through a misrepresentation and to apply it to one’s own use and benefit or the use and benefit of another, whether temporarily or permanently.
“Utter” means to use a writing with the representation, by words or actions, that it is genuine.
NOTE 3. When alleging means by which legal harm could ensue is required. Unless it is clear from the nature of the writing in what manner it is capable of affecting the legal rights of another, extrinsic facts must be alleged in the specification showing how the writing could be, or was in fact used to affect such legal rights.
A writing would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal duty on another or change his/her legal right, duty, or liability to his/her harm if the writing is capable of (paying an obligation) (delaying) (increasing) (diminishing) (or) (releasing a person from an obligation) (or) (transferring to another) (__________) a legal right.
NOTE 4. No evidence of actual defrauding. When there is no evidence that anyone was defrauded or that the accused did anything other than falsely make or alter a document, the following instruction should be given:
The fifth element of this offense requires an intent to defraud. The fact (that no one was actually defrauded) (and) (that no further action was taken with the document other than the false (making) (altering) of the writing) (and) (that no one received any benefit) is unimportant.
NOTE 5. Lack of intent raised. When there is evidence that the accused did not intend to defraud, or operated under a state of mind inconsistent with an intent to defraud, the military judge should instruct on such evidence. For example, when the defense theory is that the accused intended simply to deceive and not to defraud and is, therefore, not guilty of the offense of forgery, the members must be advised of the distinctions between the intent to defraud and the intent to deceive, and that an intent to deceive unaccompanied by an intent to deprive another of something of value is not the requisite intent for the offense of forgery. The following is a suggested general approach:
There is evidence in this case which raises the issue of whether there was a lack of intent to defraud. (The accused has testified that (he) (she)) (There is evidence to the effect that the accused) (had no intent to defraud) (intended only to deceive) (completed the alleged forgery with a belief that (he) (she) was dealing in (his) (her) own property) (completed the alleged forgery with a belief that (he) (she) was acting under proper authority) (_________). (On the other hand, there is evidence that (here outline facts which support an inference of intent to defraud). More than a mere intent to deceive is required.
An intent to deceive is an intent to cheat, to trick, or to misrepresent. An intent to defraud, however, is a misrepresentation intended to cause some loss of an item of value to another or the gain of an item of value for oneself or another, either temporarily or permanently.
NOTE 6. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent), is ordinarily applicable. Instruction 6-5, Partial Mental Responsibility, Instruction 5-15, Evidence Negating Mens Rea, and Instruction 5-21, Voluntary Intoxication, as bearing on the issue of the specific intent to defraud, may be applicable.
Source: Instruction 3a-37-2 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil