Table Content
Article 123a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes the making, drawing, uttering, or delivering of a check, draft, or order for the payment of money when the issuer knows there are insufficient funds or credit with the financial institution. The statute applies whether the instrument is written, electronic, or otherwise executed. The offense focuses on the accused’s knowledge and intent at the time the financial instrument is issued.
The article covers issuing a check or similar instrument with intent to defraud. It also covers issuing such an instrument for the purpose of obtaining something of value while knowing that sufficient funds or credit do not exist. Presenting a check on a closed account typically satisfies the knowledge element.
Article 123a applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ under Article 2, including active-duty service members, certain reservists, and others within military jurisdiction. Civilians are included only when otherwise brought under UCMJ authority. The offense may be charged regardless of the accused’s duty status at the moment the check was issued, so long as jurisdiction exists.
The government must prove that the accused acted with intent to defraud or that the accused knew there were insufficient funds or credit available. Negligence alone is insufficient for liability. Knowledge may be inferred from circumstances such as prior bank notices, account closure, or repeated dishonored checks.
Attempt and conspiracy may be charged under Articles 80 and 81 when the conduct falls short of completing the offense or involves agreement between participants. Accomplice liability under Article 77 can apply to individuals who aid, abet, or procure another to issue a worthless check. These theories are used in the same manner as in other UCMJ offenses.
The government must prove each element of Article 123a beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish that the accused knowingly and wrongfully issued or uttered a check, draft, or order that was not supported by sufficient funds or credit.
The mens rea requirement under Article 123a is the intent to defraud. This requires proof that the accused acted with the purpose of deceiving another regarding the validity of the financial instrument and the availability of funds or credit.
The actus reus consists of issuing or delivering a check, draft, or similar instrument that is not supported by sufficient funds or credit. The government must demonstrate that the instrument was used to obtain something of value or to satisfy an existing obligation.
Key statutory terms include “credit,” which refers to an express agreement with the financial institution for payment despite insufficient funds, and “utter,” which encompasses offering or delivering the instrument to another, regardless of whether it is ultimately accepted.
Punishment for offenses under Article 123a, UCMJ, depends on the date the alleged conduct occurred. The traditional maximum_punishment model applies to offenses committed before December 27, 2023. A revised sentencing_category framework applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 123a included two distinct offenses with different maximum punishments:
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 123a is assigned to sentencing categories based on the offense subtype:
Under the sentencing_category system, offenses are grouped into categories with preset confinement ranges rather than individualized maximum punishments for each offense. This differs from the prior model, which specified a unique maximum confinement term for each offense and variant. The new framework standardizes sentencing ranges while retaining judicial discretion within each category.
Charging decisions under Article 123a generally reflect the underlying financial conduct, the service member’s access to banking systems, and how the issue first comes to the attention of command. Prosecutors rely heavily on documented transactions, banking records, and witness statements, and command discretion often determines whether the matter is handled administratively or proceeds to formal charges.
Most Article 123a prosecutions arise from patterns of financial behavior rather than a single isolated incident. The following situations frequently lead to charges:
Cases typically begin when financial institutions notify commands, on-base vendors submit loss reports, or civilian businesses contact military law enforcement. Commands may initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to establish the basic fact pattern. When the conduct suggests intentional deception or significant financial loss, investigative agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS often become involved. These agencies gather banking records, transaction histories, and statements from involved parties to determine whether the elements of Article 123a are met.
Prosecutors often employ charge-stacking to account for different theories of criminal liability, such as pairing Article 123a with larceny or general misconduct provisions. Overlap frequently occurs where the same conduct can be framed as both a financial deception and a broader integrity issue. Alternative charging theories are common when intent is disputed, allowing fact-finders to assess multiple permissible UCMJ pathways based on the same underlying conduct.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 123a often turn on whether the government can establish each required element with admissible evidence. Litigation commonly centers on factual disputes, the reliability of witnesses, interpretation of financial records, and rulings on evidentiary or procedural issues that shape what the factfinder may consider.
Contested issues frequently arise over whether the government has carried its burden on specific statutory elements, such as proving that an accused made, drew, or uttered a check and did so with knowledge of insufficient funds or credit. Questions may develop regarding the authenticity or origin of the financial instrument, the accuracy of bank records, or whether the accused was the individual responsible for presenting the check. In some cases, challenges arise over whether the check was presented for the purpose contemplated by the statute or whether alleged insufficiency of funds occurred at the relevant time. These disputes typically focus on evidentiary sufficiency rather than strategic considerations.
Mens rea is often a central issue because Article 123a requires proof that the accused acted with knowledge of insufficient funds or with an intent to defraud, depending on the subsection charged. Litigation may concern whether the accused had actual or constructive knowledge of the account balance, whether a misunderstanding of bank procedures negates the requisite mental state, or whether the timing of deposits, holds, or electronic transactions bears on intent. Disputes may also arise when the government relies on circumstantial evidence to infer intent, prompting examination of whether alternative explanations are consistent with lawful conduct.
Witness credibility frequently plays a role, particularly when testimony concerns the circumstances surrounding issuance of the check, communications between parties, or the accused’s awareness of account status. Investigators, financial institution representatives, and individuals who received the check may offer conflicting accounts. Factfinders must often evaluate inconsistencies, memory limitations, or potential bias without relying solely on documentary records.
Evidentiary challenges may involve the admissibility of statements made during financial or command inquiries, the validity of searches of personal financial records, or the handling of digital banking information. Questions arise regarding voluntariness under Article 31(b), authentication of electronic transaction histories, or the foundation required for business records. Suppression motions may be litigated when evidence is obtained through questionable search procedures or when documentation lacks sufficient reliability.
Interpretation of statutory terms such as “intent to defraud,” “utter,” or “insufficient funds” can generate legal disputes, particularly when applied to modern banking practices. Courts may examine legislative history, related UCMJ provisions, or financial industry norms to determine the scope of Article 123a. Ambiguities in cross-referenced regulations or definitions occasionally require judicial clarification to ensure consistent application.
Offenses involving government computer misuse that often accompany financial wrongdoing
Larceny and wrongful appropriation charges that may arise alongside financial misconduct
Credit card and access device fraud as a related financial offense
False official statements commonly charged when financial misconduct involves deception
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, and legal effects that may arise independently of any punishment imposed at a court-martial. These consequences are typically governed by military regulations, federal law, or state law and can continue to affect a service member’s career and personal life after the judicial process concludes.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 123a for issuing worthless checks may influence a commander’s decision to initiate administrative separation. Depending on the circumstances, the resulting discharge characterization could range from honorable to other than honorable. The conviction may also affect eligibility for promotion, reenlistment, and continued service. In some cases, it can influence retirement consideration if the misconduct raises concerns about reliability or financial responsibility.
Financial misconduct can raise concerns under security clearance adjudicative guidelines, particularly those related to personal conduct and financial responsibility. A conviction may lead to heightened review, suspension, or revocation of clearance eligibility, which can affect access to classified information and limit military duty assignments. After separation, these clearance implications may also influence civilian employment in fields that rely on a security clearance or trustworthiness determinations.
Convictions under Article 123a generally do not trigger sex offender registration or similar status-based reporting obligations. However, any reporting requirements that might apply are determined by federal and state law, and depend on the specific nature of the offense and jurisdictional rules.
The same conduct underlying an Article 123a offense may also violate federal or state laws governing fraud or issuance of bad checks. This can create potential exposure to separate civilian prosecution or civil claims for restitution, depending on the circumstances.
For non-citizens, certain financial-related convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future naturalization applications. Impact varies by individual circumstances and applicable immigration law.
Decisions made during the investigative phase often shape the outcome of a case long before charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that a service member understands the process and the potential implications of actions taken during this stage.
Military investigators typically gather statements, financial documents, bank records, and digital data soon after an allegation involving Article 123a arises. Early legal involvement can help clarify how information is provided, ensure statements are accurately documented, and address concerns related to the preservation or interpretation of electronic records.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before the service member fully understands the allegations or the scope of the inquiry. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or unclear information, waive important rights, or make assumptions about the investigation that later limit available options.
Command-directed investigations and administrative inquiries may proceed even when criminal charges have not been preferred. Early decisions—such as how to respond to questioning or requests for documents—can influence the command’s perception and shape the administrative record that accompanies the case.
Choices made early in the process, including statements, consent to searches, or administrative responses, can carry through to later stages of a court-martial or administrative action. These early actions may be referenced by investigators, commanders, or even a civilian military defense lawyer reviewing the matter, and they often remain part of the official record throughout the proceedings.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients facing complex military criminal allegations, providing legal guidance throughout the investigative and disciplinary processes. Their attorneys handle a wide range of UCMJ matters, including cases involving financial_related offenses such as those charged under Article 123a.
If you are facing an allegation under UCMJ Article 123a or anticipate an investigation, you may benefit from speaking with an attorney experienced in military criminal law. Gonzalez & Waddington welcomes inquiries from service members seeking informed legal guidance and offers consultations to discuss the circumstances of a case and available avenues for defense.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 123a: Worthless Check Offenses cover?
A: Article 123a addresses situations in which a service member knowingly writes or utters a check, draft, or order without sufficient funds or with the intent to defraud. The offense focuses on the member’s knowledge of insufficient funds at the time the instrument was issued. It applies whether the check is written to a business, individual, or government entity and covers both on_installation and off_installation transactions involving military personnel.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 123a: Worthless Check Offenses?
A: Maximum punishment varies depending on the circumstances of the offense, including the amount of the check and whether there was intent to defraud. Potential penalties may include confinement, forfeitures, reduction in rank, and a punitive discharge if tried by special or general court_martial. Commanders and legal authorities determine the appropriate forum and potential penalties based on the severity and available evidence in each case.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Allegations of issuing worthless checks can trigger administrative review processes that are separate from court_martial proceedings. A commander may initiate separation proceedings based on documented misconduct, financial irresponsibility, or a pattern of adverse behavior, even if the member is not convicted. The administrative process uses a lower evidentiary standard, and the potential outcomes may include retention, probationary measures, or separation depending on the service’s policies.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members have the option to consult with both assigned military defense counsel and civilian counsel at their own expense. Whether to hire a civilian attorney depends on the complexity of the allegation, the potential consequences, and the member’s preferences. Civilian counsel can supplement the representation provided by military defense counsel, but the decision to obtain such representation is a personal and strategic choice rather than a requirement.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, for example through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address worthless check issues through administrative measures or nonjudicial punishment when the circumstances are less severe or when a court_martial is deemed unnecessary. Options may include counseling, reprimands, corrective training, or Article 15 proceedings. These actions allow commanders to address misconduct promptly while still maintaining the ability to escalate the matter if additional concerns arise.
Q: What investigative agencies typically handle allegations involving worthless checks?
A: Investigations may be conducted by unit leadership, military police, or service_specific investigative agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the circumstances and any related misconduct. Investigators may review bank records, financial statements, witness statements, and transaction histories. The scope of the inquiry depends on the complexity of the alleged conduct and whether broader financial or fraudulent activities are suspected.
Q: What types of evidence are important in Article 123a cases?
A: Key evidence may include bank account activity, check images, transaction records, statements from recipients, and any communications reflecting the member’s awareness of insufficient funds. Investigators may also consider patterns of financial behavior or previous incidents. The central issue is typically whether the member knew funds were inadequate at the time of issuing the check, and evidence is evaluated to determine intent and circumstances surrounding the transaction.
If you want to review the Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law, you can start here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You may also find helpful official information from the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps at afjag.af.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
