Texas Senate Bill SB1486

Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

Caption

Relating to the presumption of intent in the prosecution of certain criminal cases involving theft by check or issuance of a bad check.

Impact

The proposed changes in SB1486 would enhance the ability of prosecutors to effectively pursue cases of theft by bad checks, potentially leading to increased accountability for such offenses. By clearly defining the presumption of intent in these situations, the bill aims to reduce the burden of proof required to establish culpability. This change is anticipated to have significant implications not only for offenders but also for creditors, who may face fewer challenges in recovering owed amounts. The bill may further allow for a more consistent approach to handling bad check offenses across Texas.

Summary

SB1486 seeks to amend the Texas Penal Code concerning theft related to the issuance of bad checks. The bill aims to establish a presumption of intent for individuals who issue checks without sufficient funds or without a bank account when the check is presented for payment. Specifically, if a check is returned for insufficient funds and the issuer does not pay the holder within ten days after receiving notice of the returned check, this circumstance serves as prima facie evidence of the issuer's intent to commit theft. The legislation is crucial in clarifying the parameters under which a person can be prosecuted for theft by check, thereby streamlining the legal process for such cases.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention surrounding SB1486 is the reliance on the presumption of intent based solely on the issuer's financial situation at the time of the check issuance. Critics argue that this may disproportionately affect individuals who may have temporary cash flow issues yet did not intend to defraud anyone. The allowance for exceptions, such as postdated checks or checks tied to consumer debt, highlights an ongoing debate about fairness in the legal treatment of such cases. Moreover, stakeholders who support consumer protections may raise concerns about the broader implications of increased prosecutorial discretion in financial transactions.