Forgery
What happens if you sign another person’s signature without having an authority to do so?
If you are in California, you can face criminal charges for forging someone else’s signatures or even handwriting. Forgery is declared as a crime under California’s Penal Code’s statute 470. If you are found to be counterfeiting signature or handwriting or seal of another person or an organization without any legal authority or explanation, you can face criminal charges resulting in both monetary fines and jail time.
Penal Code § 470 describes several different forgery theories: a false signature, forged handwriting or seal, alteration of specified records, and knowingly making or passing certain forged instruments. For a false-signature count, California's jury instruction requires proof that the person signed a qualifying document with another person's or a false name, knew they lacked authority, and intended to defraud. A financial loss need not actually occur for that theory. The complaint and original writing should be examined before assuming that every altered document or disputed signature satisfies the same elements.
For example, if a person signed a spouse's property-transfer paper while the spouse was away, the existence and scope of actual authority would matter; a family relationship or claimed letter of permission alone does not decide the charge. A partner's name on a disputed contract raises a different question about who signed, what permission existed, the type of writing and intent to defraud. Neither hypothetical establishes a conviction or a defense without the document and surrounding evidence.
In the cases of forgery, our focus in on finding out relevant details that can help us get the most favorable outcomes for our clients. From pursuing defenses such as mistaken identity, challenging the accusation of intent to defraud, contesting false charges, to establishing the person’s authority to sign the document, we are capable of managing your case with the best defense approach.
Identify the writing and the specific forgery theory
“Forgery” describes several different acts in Penal Code § 470. A false-signature allegation under subdivision (a) is not identical to forging another person’s handwriting or seal, altering a legal record, or knowingly passing a forged instrument under other subdivisions. The complaint should identify the writing and act alleged. The 2026 California jury instruction No. 1900 requires a false-signature prosecution to prove that the defendant signed a qualifying document with another person’s or a false name, knew they lacked authority, and intended to defraud. Merely seeing an unfamiliar signature on a copy does not establish who made it or what that person intended.
Intent to defraud is an intent to deceive in a way that may cause a loss of value or harm a legal, financial or property right. The government need not prove that anyone actually lost money on that false-signature theory. Conversely, a document error or an authorized agent’s signature is not automatically a forgery simply because someone later dislikes the transaction. The scope and timing of permission matter: authority to sign one document does not necessarily authorize a different transfer, amount or date. Preserve the written authorization, relevant messages and the complete document before drawing a conclusion.
Trace how the document was created and used
Obtain the original instrument when possible, plus each scanned or emailed version, transmission record, notary or witness information, account statement and any transaction that followed. A cropped image can conceal a signature block, a later alteration or a different page.
For a digital form, access logs, device attribution and approval workflow may show whether the accused created, altered, sent or merely received it. If several people used the same office account or shared device, counsel can compare the full timeline with other authentic records instead of assuming the account holder performed every action.
Ask whether the complaint alleges making the writing, passing it, possessing it, or a separate financial offense. Those are distinct factual tasks, even when they arise from one transaction. Penal Code § 473 also treats certain listed checks and instruments valued at $950 or less differently, subject to statutory exceptions. The special rule does not apply to every forged document, and it also does not apply to a person convicted of both forgery and identity theft as specified in section 473(b).
The actual instrument and any separately pleaded prior affect the punishment analysis. A lawyer should compare the filed count with the correct instruction and the document itself before discussing exposure or a possible resolution.
Questions worth asking early
What if the signer had permission? The answer depends on proof of who granted authority, its limits and what the signer knew. Save the authorization and communications rather than relying on a family or business relationship alone.
What if nobody lost money? Lack of loss may matter to the facts or a related charge, but actual financial harm is not a universal element of false-signature forgery. Intent and the writing still need separate proof.
