Crimes and offenses, crime of presentment of a forged instrument established, penalties established
Summary
SB66 creates a new criminal offense in Alabama called “presentment of a forged instrument.” Under the bill, a person commits this crime by knowingly presenting a forged instrument to a state employee or official, or by presenting a written instrument that identifies or is associated with another person, when done with intent to defraud. The bill is aimed at fraudulent documents used in dealings with the state or its political subdivisions.
The offense is classified as a Class D felony, which means the bill would add a new felony-level charge to the state’s criminal code and give prosecutors another tool to address document fraud involving government offices. The act would take effect on October 1, 2025.
Impact
SB66 amends Title 13A of the Code of Alabama 1975 by adding Section 13A-9-7.1, creating a distinct offense separate from the existing crime of possessing a forged instrument. It expands criminal liability to the act of presenting or uttering forged or identity-linked written instruments to state or local government personnel with fraudulent intent, and it establishes a Class D felony penalty for violations. The bill primarily affects individuals accused of document fraud and state or local government offices that receive such instruments.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support for SB66, with the bill passing its recorded House of Origin votes 31-0. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous vote suggests broad agreement that the bill addresses a fraud-related gap in the criminal code and should be enacted. There is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or divided debate.
Contention
The main substantive issue is the scope of the new offense: the bill reaches not only forged instruments but also written instruments associated with another individual, so long as they are presented to government employees or officials with intent to defraud. That language could raise questions about how broadly the offense may be applied in practice, especially in cases involving identity-related documents. However, no specific objections, amendments, or dissenting viewpoints appear in the provided discussion or voting record.