Opinion ID: 2977803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forgery Counts

Text: First, Turpin argues for acquittal by contending that endorsing checks with another’s name is not forgery within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). She and her coconspirators obtained loans in the names of their identity-theft victims by using the victims’ personal and financial information. -2- No. 07-3554 United States v. Turpin Turpin maintains that this is not forgery because the checks were genuine, albeit signed by a fraudster. But the statute defines a “forged” document as “a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely . . . endorsed . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 513(c)(2) (emphasis added); see United States v. Hunt, 456 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2006) (“In the paradigmatic case of forgery at common law, the instrument ‘is not what it purports to be’ because it purports to be written by someone who did not actually write it.”); see also United States v. Wilkins, 213 F. Supp. 332, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) (“Under the common law a person signing a check in the name of another commits forgery . . . .”). Consequently, her argument fails. And Turpin’s argument that checks are not securities is equally frivolous; the statute includes checks in the definition of “security.” 18 U.S.C. § 513(c)(3).