Could a South Carolina magistrate issue an arrest warrant over a returned payroll check from an out-of-state employer?

Plain-English summary

In a 1997 informal opinion, a senior assistant attorney general answered a magistrate's question about a payroll check from an out-of-state employer. An employee had endorsed the check to a local merchant, but the check was returned for insufficient funds and the employer had closed. The author assumed the employee did not know the check would be returned unpaid.

The letter said South Carolina's criminal fraudulent-check offense applied only to checks made or delivered within the state. Unless the employer's check was actually given or delivered in South Carolina, prosecution for that offense would have to be sought in the state where it was given, if possible. The author did not decide where this check had actually been delivered. He also described the statutory rights of a subsequent endorsee and mentioned the possibility of asking counsel about a civil remedy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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

Q: Did the fact that a local merchant cashed the check establish a South Carolina bad-check crime?
A: The letter said the offense depended on where the check was made or delivered. It did not treat the merchant's location alone as enough to establish criminal jurisdiction over the employer's check.

Q: Did the author say the employee who endorsed the check should be arrested?
A: No. He expressly assumed the employee did not know the check would be returned unpaid and analyzed the out-of-state business's check.

Q: Could a later recipient of a check have rights against its maker?
A: The letter quoted a statute giving a subsequent endorsee the original payee's rights against the maker, subject to the maker's defenses and the rule that only one interested party could exercise the chapter's remedies.

Q: Did the letter find that the employer delivered this check in South Carolina?
A: No. It said proof of actual delivery or issuance in the state was needed for the South Carolina criminal provision to apply; the request did not establish that fact.

Background and statutory framework

The magistrate asked whether an arrest warrant could issue after a merchant cashed an employee's payroll check, which was returned unpaid. The author discussed Section 34-11-60(a), which defined the fraudulent-check offense, and the provision for checks transferred by endorsement. He focused on the territorial limit of the criminal provision and said the merchant might inquire about prosecution in the other state or a civil remedy.

This was an informal opinion signed by a senior assistant attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• Statute discussed: Section 34-11-60(a) (fraudulent checks).

Official title

Indicating that a local merchant had cashed a payroll check given an employee by a business that is out of state.

Requester

Honorable William V. Hegler, Lancaster County Magistrate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-23-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97jan23hegler.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AlTORNEY GENERAL

January 23, 1997

Honorable William V. Hegler
Lancaster County Magistrate
Post Off ice Box 1809
Lancaster, South Carolina 29721
Dear Magistrate Hegler:
In a letter to this off ice you indicated that a local merchant had cashed a payroll check given an employee by a business that is out of state. You indicated that the check was returned "NSF" and the business is now closed. You questioned if an arrest warrant could be issued in such circumstances. I assume that the party presenting the check did not know that the check would be returned "NSF".

s.c. Code Section 34-11-60(a) defines the offense of drawing and uttering fraudulent checks. As to checks passed to a subsequent party by endorsement, pursuant to S.C. Code Section 3411-70(d): For purposes of this chapter, subsequent persons receiving a check, draft or other written order by endorsement from the original payee or a successor endorsee have the same rights that the original payee has against the maker of the instrument, if the maker of the instrument has the same defenses against subsequent persons as he may have had against the original payee. However, the remedies available under this chapter may be exercised by only one party in interest. Therefore, typically, an individual receiving a check by endorsement can proceed in the manner authorized by such provision. However, you indicated that in the situation you cited, the check was from an out of state business. The criminal offense of issuing a fraudulent check is only applicable to checks made or delivered in this State. Inasmuch as the business which gave the check was an out-of-state business, unless it can be shown that the check was in fact actually given or delivered in this State, the

..

)

RF.MRFRT

c n~~nl Rim nn.Jr.

•

p ("\C' T

0C'C:lrr J:J r.v 11 ( ,i (\

~

~

.... . ••• · - · .

("<,.....

"'llA,.,,, • • ,,. ......

Honorable William V. Hegler
January 23, 1997
Page two

check would have to be prosecuted in the state where it was given if possible. The merchant may wish to check if prosecution may be pursued in the other state. Of course, the merchant may also check with an attorney as to whether any civil remedy is available.

I

L

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 question asked. It has not been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am

~l°Jt~lJ-

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

jc