Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,712 charsMotors account and asked a banker to stop payment on an unauthorized deposit to the account for $14,840. The banker was unable to do so because of the status of the deposit. The banker offered to initiate a procedure involved opening a new account, transferring all the funds from the old account to the new account, and closing the old account. Smith opened another Wells Fargo business banking account for A.J. Motors, again using the social security number of the Indiana child. With Smith’s authorization, the bank transferred all of the $14,840 in the old account to the new account. On July 11, surveillance footage showed Smith making two withdrawals from the new account, the first in the amount of $5,000 and the second in the amount of $9,800. Without the prior transfer from the initial account, there would not have been sufficient funds in the new account to make these withdrawals. There was no indication that James ever purchased the car for which he obtained the loan. Tacoma Police investigated the transactions involving Smith, James, and Broussard. The State later charged Smith with two counts of forgery, one count of first degree theft, and one count of money laundering. Motion to Dismiss Forgery Charges At trial, after the State rested, Smith brought a motion to dismiss the forgery charges. He argued that the forgery charges should be dismissed because the bank account applications lacked legal efficacy, and because the State had not shown that he falsely completed the applications. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the forgery counts. The court stated, 3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 51946-1-II