Court Opinion

ID: 9525105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:00:03.462277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:56.092420
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I join in all aspects of the majority opinion’s holding except the statement to the effect that Sunshine Foods was required by SDCL 22-11 — 12 to make immediate disclosure to the authorities of the fact that it had received an “account closed” check. Although a check returned by the drawee bank to the payee marked “account closed” may very well be evidence of the commission of a felony, SDCL 22-41-1.2 * enables the writer of such a check to raise as a defense his lack of knowledge that his account had been closed, a legislative recognition of the distinction between “account closed” checks and “no account” checks. Accordingly, there very well may be good reasons why a payee may wish to make contact with the writer of an “account closed” check before turning it over to the local authorities for investigation.

 SDCL 22-41-1.2 provides:
Any person who, for himself or as an agent or representative of another for present consideration with intent to defraud, passes a check drawn on a financial institution knowing at the time of such passing that he or his principal does not have an account with such financial institution, is guilty of a Class 5 felony.
It is a defense to this section that the actor’s or his principal’s account was closed without the actor’s knowledge. Evidence that the financial institution mailed a notice by certified or registered mail to the person in whose name the account was listed at the last address contained in the financial institution’s records shall be prima facie proof that the actor had knowledge that his or his principal’s account was closed.