Where could fraudulent checks be prosecuted in South Carolina, and could the payee sue?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a representative asked about nearly $49,000 in checks received by a couple who were told prosecution would have to occur in Lexington County, where the checks were given. The Attorney General's office said Lexington County was the proper venue if the checks were issued or delivered there. It explained that checks over five hundred dollars were prosecuted in general sessions court rather than magistrate's court and that the Lexington County solicitor was the office to contact about possible criminal action.

The office also pointed the couple to a separate civil remedy for a dishonored check under § 34-11-75 and suggested discussing any suit with a private attorney. The answer was conditional on the place of issue or delivery and the relevant check amounts. It was an informal opinion, not a finding that a crime had occurred.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Which county could prosecute a fraudulent check? A: The opinion said the county where the check was issued or delivered was the appropriate county. For the described checks, that would be Lexington County if they were issued or delivered there.

Would the case go to a magistrate?
A: The opinion said a check of five hundred dollars or less had to be prosecuted in magistrate's court; a check over five hundred dollars belonged in general sessions court. It concluded that the described checks appeared to fit the latter court.

Could the payees seek money through a civil case? A: The office said they could consider a civil action under the cited bad-check provision and discuss it with a private attorney. The opinion quoted statutory conditions involving insufficient funds and a written demand; it did not decide whether those conditions were met.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied § 34-11-60 to venue for a possible fraudulent-check prosecution and § 34-11-90 to the trial court. It separately quoted § 34-11-75 on potential civil liability. The solicitor, rather than the AG letter, would address questions about a particular prosecution.

Citations and references

Statutes: §§ 34-11-60, 34-11-90, and 34-11-75.

Official title

Regarding fraudulent checks.

Requester

The Honorable J. Roland Smith, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-10-1999-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99aug-10-smith.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTO RNEY GENERAL

August 10, 1999

I
I

The Honorable J. Roland Smith
Member, House of Representatives
183 Edgar Street
Warrenville, South Carolina 29851
Dear Representative Smith:
In a letter to this off ice you requested an opinion on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Allen Claxton. In an accompanying letter, Mr. and Mrs. Claxton indicated they had received checks totalling nearly
$49,000.00 from a Mr. Jack Burns.
They indicated that they had
initially filed the required paperwork with the magistrate. They also indicated that they had been informed that inasmuch as the checks were given in Lexingto'n County, any prosecution would have to occur in that County. S.C. Code Ann. § 34-11-60 (Supp. 1998) makes it an offense to issue or deliver a fraudulent check. If the checks were issued or delivered in Lexington County, that county would be the appropriate county for any possible prosecution. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 34-11-90 (Supp. 1998), if the amount of the check is five hundred dollars or less, it must be prosecuted in magistrate's court. If the amount is over five hundred dollars, it must be prosecuted in general sessions court. Therefore, as to the checks given to the Claxtons, it appears that they would be tried in general sessions court. Therefore, they are correctly contacting the Lexington County solicitor inasmuch as that office typically prosecutes cases in general sessions court in that County. Of course, as to any prosecution, that off ice would be the appropriate off ice to contact regarding any questions the Claxtons may have. I would advise further that the Claxtons could consider civil action against the individual who gave the check . S.C. Code Ann.
§ 34-11-75 (Supp. 1998) states:

; /}
.-(//

Rl' M OERT

c. DENN IS B UILDING

A.-LJ/_J~ ,~,,,"7'h-J ·

•

PosT OrncF. B ox 11549

•

COl.l 'Mll lA, S.C. 292 11 - 1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 80)-734-:vno

•

F.\ CS IM ll .E: XO:l -25 3-6283

The Honorable J. Roland Smith
August 10, 1999
Page 2

In addition to criminal penalties, a person who knowingly or with fraudulent intent ... draws, makes, utters, or issues and delivers to another a check drawn on a bank ... that refuses to honor it because the maker or drawer does not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with the bank ... with which to pay the check upon presentation and who fails to pay the same amount in cash to the payee, within thirty days following written demand, is liable to the payee for the amount owing on the check and for damages of the lesser of five hundred dollars or three times the amount owing on the check ....

[

I
I

The Claxtons could discuss any possible civil action with a private attorney who could further advise them regarding such. Therefore, as to the situation involving the check, in summary, the Claxtons could work with the Lexington County solicitor as to possible criminal action or contact a private attorney for possible civil relief. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am,

r

Very truly yours,

~-f#id::E-

Senior Assistant Attorney General
kws