Cases | 2007-Ohio-399(Ohio Ct. App. 2007) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of forgery in connection with the deposit of a two-party check signed by the defendant and with a forged signature of the victim. The victim had hired the defendant to do repair work on her home and had financed the work through a secondary mortgage. The bank issued two, two-party checks with the names of both the defendant and the victim. The victim signed the first check when work began but the victim claimed to never have seen the second check, though it was later deposited with a signature that did not match the other check. The work on the victim’s home was never completed. The defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $23,500, the second check’s face value. The defendant appealed, arguing that the amount of restitution was improper because it did not take into account the benefit received by the victim from the work performed by the defendant on the victim’s home. The appellate court found that a forged check with the amount received on it was competent and credible evidence to establish the economic loss suffered by the victim. Additionally, the amount should not be adjusted to reflect any benefit the victim may have received because the underlying crime was forgery, not theft. As the defendant knew he was depositing a forged check, the amount illegally received by the criminal action represents the loss to the victim. The order of restitution was affirmed.