Are you sure we have the time to become a part of the transaction, either as a payee or as a payer. Of course, you will need to receive cash as a beneficiary, as you are certain that your payment will be fully deducted from any further action that depends on your end. Now as a payer, checkout is more convenient, especially for major transactions, as you do not have to worry about cash withdrawal and ensuring that all of your costs are accounted for and charged to the last hundred pounds

. It's great if every deal went smoothly. However, both parties accept and accept the payment in good faith. But what if he broke someone who had a mistake? Or what if you gave a bona fide demonstration of a business, but at the time of issue, the bill did not have enough cash and mentally noted that you could upload the bill as it was paid. Unfortunately, you notice that the check has jumped.

The above cases have accelerated over the years and have caused an unfortunate chain reaction that involves one or both of the following: Estafa and Batas Pambasa (BP) 22 or the Law on Bouncing Inspections.

Estafa publishing non-funded audits

The crime of Estafa was punished according to the Revised Criminal Code. Estafa should be guilty of making bribe checks using false accusations or fraudulent acts before or at the time of the fraud:

"Following the check on a later day or when a bankruptcy is filed when the perpetrator has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of control (Article 315 (2)) (amended Penal Code d ). "

How can people be declared guilty in Estafa?

Under RPC, the following elements are required to hold Estafa guilty:

1. Date of receipt or payment of the contractual obligation at the time of check

2. The inadequacy of funds to cover the check, and

3. Injury for the Beneficiary

The most important element here is the damage caused. In the absence of the following elements, man is not responsible for Estafa.

Solution:

Andres owns and operates the trade and has bought a good deal of goods purchased from Boniface and has not checked the value of the goods received financially.

In this scenario, Andres can be held accountable to Estafa as he issued a check because he knew that he did not have enough cash to pay for the items purchased from Bonifacio. The refused check was issued with fraudulent intent.

Bouncing Check Act (BP 22)

Unlike Estafa based on RPC, BP ​​22 is special law. A person may be charged for a violation of BP 22 if he or she follows the following actions:

1. Acquiring or issuing or issuing access to a bill or a claim or verification, acknowledging that he does not have sufficient funds at the time of issue or the debtor bank does not have sufficient funds to pay the receipt which was subsequently made by the veto bank for the lack of money or credit or would have been disappointed for the same reason if the account was not assigned to the bank for any reason to stop the insolvency

. If the billing bank is covered or credited with sufficient funds when executing or calling and issuing a check, it will not fill in the required funds or hold a credit to cover the full amount of checks if it is submitted within ninety (90) days of 1968 since the bank of the offense mocks.

How can people be convicted of a violation of BP 22?

Violation of BP 22 against any person may be voiced if gift:

1. Performing, drawing and issuing all checks related to the opening or opening of an account;

2. The creator, account, or issuer is aware that he does not have sufficient funds at the time of issue with the creditor bank or deserves credit for payment of the transfer; and

3. Because of the subsequent humiliation of a lottery bank due to funds or loans or dishonesty due to the same reason, the account was not assigned to the bank for any reason to suspend payment.

Same as Estafa, all of these requirements are important. Otherwise, charging BP 22 will not connect. Please note that insufficient funds are known if it is proved that the issuer has been notified of the dishonesty and has failed to pay or pay for the check within 5 days of receipt. In addition, good faith in BP 22 is irrelevant. This means that by issuing unannounced checks alone, the crime has already been reached.

Based on the above-described example, André may also be able to deal with violations of BP 22, except for Estafa, since the BP 22 cases also include checking the bouncing value.

Where is the difference?

This is the Estafa when it publishes, among other things, a non-monetary control with fraudulent intent, taking into account the value received. This intention is essential and good faith can be used as a protection.

The case of a breach of BP 22 when it does not provide a sponsored check, regardless of whether or not it has been contracted before the check was issued. Simply put, you are responsible for BP 22 to issue a check for a present or an earlier obligation

.

Source by sbobet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *