I didn`t know there were professional handwriting editors. I think it would be hard work because I don`t think I could do it. Especially in the detection of counterfeits. You probably exercise for years. There are several elements of the crime of falsification, and all of them must be proven before anyone can be convicted: if you apply this decision to your case, you can always prove that the handwriting or signature that appears on the deed of sale has been falsified, compared to your signature that appears on a public or private document/instrument or witness statements, who know your writing. It should be emphasized that the court of first instance can effectively establish falsification from its own independent examination of the available written evidence. The trial judge may do so without necessarily resorting to experts, especially if it is simply a similarity or dissimilarity of handwriting, which can be determined by visually comparing a copy of the signatures in question with those of existing signatures. Paragraph 22 of Article 132 of the Rules of Procedure expressly authorises the Court to compare the manuscript at issue `with writings accepted or treated as authentic to the satisfaction of the court by the party against whom the evidence has been presented or proved authentic`. However, according to the criteria set out in Ladignon, the private defendant cannot only present substantial differences between or between signatures.

In addition, it must (1) demonstrate the extent, nature and significance of the variation; (2) He must prove that the deviation is due to the work of another personality and not only to an expected and inevitable deviation found in the authentic writing of the same author; and (3) he must prove that the similarity is the result of a more or less skillful imitation and not just a habitual and characteristic similarity that appears naturally in a real font. As for the argument that handwriting experts should have been used, handwriting experts are generally useful in analyzing documents falsified due to the technical process, but the use of these experts is not mandatory or indispensable for the examination or comparison of handwriting. The determination of a forgery does not depend solely on the testimony of handwriting experts, since the judge must examine the signature in question in order to reach a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. The opinions of manuscript experts are not binding on the courts, especially if it is a simple similarity or dissimilarity of handwriting, which can be established by visually comparing copies of the signatures in question with those of existing signatures. In addition, Article 22 of Article 132 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice also expressly authorises the Court of First Instance to compare the manuscript at issue `with documents accepted or treated as authentic by the party against whom the evidence is presented or which has proved to be authentic to the satisfaction of the court`. â In manzano v. Garcia, the Supreme Court, analyzed the jurisprudence of counterfeiting and handwriting experts to confirm that a trial court does not have to rely on a handwriting expert to determine that something is wrong: counterfeiting laws can vary from state to state. In all States, counterfeiting can be considered a crime. Possible penalties include imprisonment, fines, probation and reparations, where the defendant compensates the victim for money or property lost as a result of the forgery. Some states punish counterfeiting crimes depending on the type of counterfeiting committed.

New York classifies counterfeits in “degrees” based on the type of document that has been tampered with. Basically, the rule of proof is that if the subject matter of the investigation is the content of a document, no evidence other than the original document itself is admissible, except in the cases referred to in section 3, rule 130 of the Revised Judicial Code. Simple photocopies of documents are not permitted under the best evidence rule. This is especially true when it comes to counterfeits. Most anti-counterfeiting measures deal with the necessary element of intent to cheat or deceive. Proving that the defendant did not have a specific intent is a complete defense, as it means that the defendant did not have the necessary mindset to commit the crime. Signatures on a disputed document may be examined by the judge of the procedural court and compared with accepted authentic signatures in order to determine the question of the authenticity of the contested document. Xxx xxx”. A judge must therefore conduct an independent review of the signature himself in order to reach a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity, which cannot be done without the original copy being presented to the court. This assertion by the petitioners is untenable. Due to the formality of the procedure for verifying falsified documents, the expertise of the document reviewers interviewed is usually useful. .

647