Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor’s account is a victim that suffers an economic loss under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). The court reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals and reinstated the restitution order requiring Zachary Allen to pay restitution to the banks.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a bank that cashes a forged check and later recredits the depositor's account is a victim that suffered an economic loss under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and therefore may receive restitution from the offender.
- Whether the banks were third parties rather than victims because they reimbursed the account holders.
Holdings
- A bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor's account is a victim that suffers an economic loss and may receive restitution from the forger under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
- A bank does not become a noncompensable third party merely because it recredits the depositor's account; unlike an insurer fulfilling a contractual obligation, the bank is the entity defrauded and bears the economic loss caused by the forged check.
Key quotations
“A bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor’s account is a victim to which the forger may be required to pay restitution.” (¶ 1)
“Taken together, these three considerations—the banks having lost something in which they had a property interest at the moment of the crime, the banks bearing the economic loss by operation of statute, and the banks having been the targets of Allen’s crimes—establish that the banks are victims under any common-sense understanding of that term.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Zachary Allen cashed seven forged checks at branches of three banks. He pleaded guilty to seven counts of forgery. The banks recredited the account holders' accounts, and the trial court ordered Allen to pay restitution to the banks in the amount of the forged checks.
Procedural history
Allen pleaded guilty to seven forgery counts, and the trial court ordered him to pay restitution to three banks for the amounts of seven forged checks. The Tenth District reversed and vacated the restitution order, concluding that the banks were third parties rather than victims under R.C. 2929.18. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the trial court's restitution order.
Remand instructions
The court reinstated the trial court's order imposing restitution; no further remand instructions were stated.