Estafa by postdating a check

As a bill of exchange a post-dated cheque remains negotiable but it will not become a "cheque" till the date when it becomes "payable on demand".and mainly revolves around section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

estafa by postdating a check-41estafa by postdating a check-87estafa by postdating a check-19

Imelda argues that the circuit court erred in: (1) amending the judgment to substitute Imelda as the personal representative of the Marcos Estate and entering judgment against her in that capacity; (2) denying Imelda’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, argued on the grounds that (a) the Roxas Estate’s claims against the Marcos Estate were barred by (i) the statute of limitations, (ii) the “act of state” doctrine, (iii) the “head of state” doctrine, and (iv) lack of personal jurisdiction, and (b) there was insufficient evidence to support the Roxas Estate’s claims for (i) conversion, (ii) false imprisonment, and (iii) damages; (3) failing to give preclusive effect to the opinion of a Philippines trial court regarding the authenticity of the “golden” buddha; and (4) admitting hearsay evidence under the “co-conspirators exception” of Hawai’i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 803(a)(2)(C) (1993). HRE Rule 803 provides in relevant part that “[t]he following [is] not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: … A statement that was offered against a party and was uttered by … a co-conspirator of the party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Imelda’s points of error (2)(a)(i), (2)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(iii), (2)(a)(iv), (2)(b)(i), (2)(b)(ii), (3), and (4) are without merit.

With regard to her first point of error, we hold that Imelda’s purported “substitution” as “personal representative” of the Marcos Estate was ineffective to bind the Marcos Estate but that her conduct during these proceedings judicially estops her from denying personal liability to the extent of her interest, as an heir, in the Marcos Estate.

The two major issues before the courts are: 1) Post-dated cheques that are stopped by the bank or issuer, causing problems for whoever is to be paid by the cheque for goods or services provided and; 2) the reverse, in which a person is promised goods or services but does not receive them and has to stop the cheque.

In the UK the legislation is clear; 'A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand'.

In the United States and the UK, post-dated cheques are negotiable instruments and can be drawn upon at any time, while in India and Australia post-dated cheques are not payable until the date written on the cheque. (1) Where a cheque, or any indorsement of a cheque, is dated, the date shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the day on which the cheque was drawn or the indorsement made, as the case may be.