Fake doctors note

[Ohiogal]

A synthetic identity is a combination of fake data (e.g., fake name) with real data (e.g., a person's social security number) created and used with an intent to defraud.

Based on what has been described here, creating the fake doctor's note was foolish but does not appear to be criminal or rise to the felony level of synthetic identity deception.

But it can get Tori-Tori fired.

Here is a link to IC 35-43-5-3.8:
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2017/title-35/article-43/chapter-5/section-35-43-5-3.8/

Whose email address did she use????????

 

[quincy]

Whose email address did she use????????

I don't know.

My guess is that Tori-Tori created a fake email address to go along with the fake doctor's name and fake doctor's note. If Tori-Tori actually used his/her own email account, it would be awfully easy to see that the doctor's note was fake (although it is probably going to be discovered as fake anyway).

 

[cbg]

If Tori-Tori's HR department is even halfway competent, the odds of it being discovered are about 3-1 for. If she's just providing a doctor's note because she's on a last chance warning for absences and she wanted to cover a "sick" day, she might get away with it if they're really busy. Not terribly likely, but possible. But if this fake note had anything at all to do with either FMLA or the ADA, or for that matter disability benefits, Tori-Tori might as well start packing her desk now because it WILL be caught.

 

[TigerD]

Yes, you are potentially facing criminal charges if it gets to the police or prosecutor. The crime is called forgery. It is a level 6 felony in your state.

TD

 

[NeilTheCop]

Because false information submitted to their employer might amount to a crime or offense. For example, for federal employees it could amount to falsification of official records, which federal regulations define in detail as follows:

Employees shall not intentionally or with willful disregard make false or misleading statements, orally or in writing, in connection with any matter of official interest. Matters of official interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Official reports and any other official information upon which the Department, the Congress, other government agencies, or the public may act or rely; transactions with the public, government agencies or other government employees; application forms and other forms that serve as a basis for any personnel action; vouchers; time and attendance records, including leave records; work reports of any nature or accounts of any kind; affidavits; record of or data concerning any matter relating to or connected with an employee's duties; personnel records; and reports of any moneys or securities received, held or paid to, for or on behalf of the United States.​

​

31 CFR § 0.211. The key difference here between the private employee and the public one being that falsification of government records can be criminal while generally speaking falsification of a private company's records is not generally in and of itself criminal.

So if you lie to the government it's a felony, but if the government lies to you it's politics

 

[LdiJ]

Yes, you are potentially facing criminal charges if it gets to the police or prosecutor. The crime is called forgery. It is a level 6 felony in your state.

TD

It was not a forgery. She did not use the name of a real doctor.

 

[TigerD]

It was not a forgery. She did not use the name of a real doctor.

You think that matters?

 

[LdiJ]

You think that matters?

Of course it matters. A forgery (in this context) is faking a real person's signature for personal gain. You cannot forge the signature of a person who does not exist.

Seriously, you are off the wall on this one.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Of course it matters. A forgery (in this context) is faking a real person's signature for personal gain. You cannot forge the signature of a person who does not exist.

Seriously, you are off the wall on this one.

No.

"Forgery" is the creation of a false document (or alteration of a real one) with the intent to defraud.

In this case, one can argue that the employer was defrauded: the employee took a paid sick day.

 

[TigerD]

Of course it matters. A forgery (in this context) is faking a real person's signature for personal gain. You cannot forge the signature of a person who does not exist.

Seriously, you are off the wall on this one.

Off the wall ... come now. I'll walk you through the wonderful world of criminal law:
First let's start with the relevant parts of the statute:

Sec. 2

. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:

(1) makes or utters a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made:
(A) by another person;

A person (that would be the person proffering the writing) who knowingly or intentionally (for this purpose I will not parse knowing or intentionally - this hypo is both) makes or utters (this means creates or passes) a written instrument (this is only point where there would be a valid debate - is an email a written instrument under Indiana law? I am not licensed there and truly not interested enough to look it up) in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another person (they gave it another person in a way that claims to have been made by someone else).

There is no requirement that the "another person" be proven to be a specific doctor, only that the is created and presented to something that it is not. If you want to become a true jerk of a prosecutor, if there is any financial gain sought through doing this there is also the Indiana equivalent to theft or stealing by deception. Also, since the email was generated on a computer and sent, it may have crossed state lines, that inculcates the federal equivalents of the same charges plus wire fraud. If a letter was generated and mailed by the employer in response to the email you have mail fraud.

It is very easy to break the law intentionally or unintentionally.

TD

 

[Taxing Matters]

Off the wall ... come now. I'll walk you through the wonderful world of criminal law:
First let's start with the relevant parts of the statute:

One might well construct the argument for a crime here along the lines you mention. It appears though that you were citing from paragraph (2)(a), which is the crime of counterfeiting. The crime, of forgery is found in paragraph (2)(d) but is pretty similar. The Indiana Courts lay out the elements of forgery as follows:

To convict Bocanegra of forgery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Bocanegra, (2) with intent to defraud, (3) made, uttered, or possessed a written instrument in such a manner that it purported to have been made (a) by another person (b) at another time (c) with different provisions or (d) by authority of one who did not give authority. Ind.Code § 35–43–5–2.​

Proof of intent to defraud requires a showing the defendant demonstrated “intent to deceive and thereby work a reliance and injury.” Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d 169, 170 (Ind.1984) (emphasis added). Actual injury is not required; potential injury is enough. See Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250, 252 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (“[T]here must be a potential benefit to the maker or potential injury to the defrauded party”) (quoting Jacobs v. State, 640 N.E.2d 61, 65 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (emphasis added)).​

Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The case law makes it clear that the forgery does not have to purport to be from a real person. It simply has to purport to be from someone other than the person who created it. The courts make clear that the real thrust of the crime is the intent to defraud; i.e. the intent to deceive and "thereby work a reliance and injury." There is no question here that the e-mail purported to be from someone else and that there was an intent to deceive. So it seem to be the issue would come down to whether there was the intent to work an injury — for the OP to gain some potential benefit from the employer or to cause a potential injury to the employer.

And prosecutors do get creative. Consider a case involving a federal wire fraud charge prosecution of a federal employee who was paid a salary (rather than by the hour) and who was alleged to have falsified his hours worked with his employer. He allegedly did not work all the hours he claimed to have worked. The employee argued for dismissal of the charge saying that because he was paid a salary his pay would not have been any different had he reported the real (reduced) hours he worked. He then said this meant that the government suffered no injury because was not out any extra money from the falsified hours. But the court agreed with the U.S. Attorney and rejected the motion to dismiss stating:

Had Mr. Ransom accurately recorded the number of hours he actually worked during the course of a pay period and failed to account with leave for all of his absent time, HUD would have had the opportunity to exercise its right to terminate Mr. Ransom’s employment if it so chose. But it was deprived of valuable information about Mr. Ransom’s work habits by virtue of his false reports. Therefore, regardless of whether the submission of falsified T & A Reports impacted the amount Mr. Ransom received in any given paycheck, it did help permit Mr. Ransom to continue his employment despite his reduced work hours and to continue to receive a paycheck. Therefore, if the government can establish the requisite intent at trial, the submission of the Reports could be said to have resulted in a deprivation of something of value to the ​

United States—namely, the amount paid Mr. Ransom in salary—by means of deceit. ​

​

United States v. Ransom, Case No. 09-20057-JWL, Memorandum and Order 11/9/2009 (D. Kansas). In short, the court bought the argument that by deceiving the employer into continuing to employ him rather than getting fired had he accurately reported his hours, the agency was injured by keeping him employed and paying his salary after the deception.

Continued employment might constitute the injury in the case of the OP, too. Whether the Indiana courts would go down the same path the federal district court did to determine that as an injury I cannot say, but if a federal court judge bought it, so might a state court judge.

​

 

[Ohiogal]

Of course it matters. A forgery (in this context) is faking a real person's signature for personal gain. You cannot forge the signature of a person who does not exist.

Seriously, you are off the wall on this one.

You are completely wrong. QUIT POSTING. If she used another person's email that is enough …

 

[TigerD]

One might well ...

I appreciate the effort you put into that. I'm afraid I have neither the time nor inclination to put that much effort into a response.

 

[quincy]

I hope Tori-Tori returns to let us know what happened.