California Penal Code §476a — Insufficient Funds Check
PC §476a makes it unlawful to willfully, with intent to defraud, make, draw, utter, or deliver any check, draft, or order for the payment of money on any bank or depositary knowing at the time that the maker has insufficient funds in, or credit with, that bank to pay the check on presentation. §476a is California's core 'bad check' statute — a wobbler where the aggregate check amount exceeds $950 or where the defendant has a qualifying prior. Felony exposure is 16 months, 2, or 3 years county jail; misdemeanor exposure is up to 1 year jail and a $1,000 fine.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Insufficient Funds Check Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §476a — Insufficient Funds Check at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §476a — Insufficient Funds Check |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Wobbler (misdemeanor or felony) |
| Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year county jail + $1,000 fine |
| Felony | 16 months, 2, or 3 years county jail (§1170(h)) |
| Wobbler Trigger | Aggregate >$950 or qualifying prior |
| Strike | No |
| Expungeable | Yes — §1203.4 (misdemeanor / probation felony) |
| Immigration | CIMT — deportable / inadmissible risk |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §476a?
What Is California Penal Code §476a?
PC §476a Reads:
"Any person who, for himself or as the agent or representative of another or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers a check, draft, or order upon a bank or depositary, a person, a firm, or a corporation, for the payment of money, knowing at the time of that making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation, for the payment of that check, draft, or order and all other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170."
— California Penal Code §476a(a)
§476a punishes 'bad checks' — real-account checks drawn on insufficient funds — where the drawer knew of insufficient funds and issued with intent to defraud. It is distinct from §476 (fictitious / altered checks) and §470 (forgery). The critical mens rea is (1) knowledge of insufficient funds at issuance and (2) intent to defraud. Post-dated checks and checks issued as security are generally excluded. Common LA fact patterns include rent checks, contractor payments, wage checks, and business-to-business payments that bounce.
Why This Law Matters
§476a is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) with severe immigration consequences and licensing impact. The wobbler trigger — aggregate over $950 — is measured across all bad checks in the same case, so multi-check patterns escalate exposure. Civil compromise under PC §1377 and §1001.95 judicial diversion are the primary favorable outcomes. Rubin Law defends by challenging intent to defraud, litigating civil-compromise, and negotiating restitution-based dismissal.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §476a
The People must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant Issued a Check, Draft, or Order
Made, drew, uttered, or delivered — including e-checks and drafts.
Insufficient Funds or Credit at Time of Issuance
The account must have lacked sufficient funds at the moment the check was written and delivered.
Knowledge of Insufficient Funds
Actual knowledge of insufficient funds at issuance is required.
Intent to Defraud
Specific intent to defraud the payee — not mere carelessness or optimism.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §476a Insufficient Funds Check in California
Penalty structure and enhancements for this offense.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misdemeanor (≤$950 or single check) | PC §476a(b) | Up to 1 year county jail + $1,000 fine | Summary — up to 3 years | No |
| Felony (>$950 aggregate or prior) | PC §476a(a) / §1170(h) | 16 months, 2, or 3 years county jail | Formal — up to 2 years | No |
| Restitution + Fine | PC §1202.4 | Full restitution mandatory | Condition | N/A |
| Civil Compromise | PC §1377 | Dismissal on victim satisfaction | N/A | N/A |
Related Enhancements & Charges
Companion PC §484 Theft
PC §484
Frequently charged in the alternative.
Companion PC §470 Forgery
PC §470
Where signature or amount was altered.
Aggregation Rule
PC §476a(a)
Multiple bad checks aggregate to determine felony threshold.
Civ. Code §1719 Civil Damages
Civ. Code §1719
Payee civil-recovery — treble damages plus fees.
Beyond the Sentence
- CIMT — deportation and inadmissibility risk
- Professional-license consequences (contractor, real estate, financial services)
- Banking / merchant-account termination
- Civ. Code §1719 treble-damages civil action
- Restitution obligation extends beyond sentence
- Fraud-database and background-check impact
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §476a Insufficient Funds Check Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. defends this offense through the following strategies.
No Intent to Defraud
Bookkeeping errors, bank-timing miscalculations, and reliance on anticipated deposits negate fraudulent intent. Good-faith payment attempts are not §476a violations.
Intent Element
Sufficient Funds at Issuance
If the account had sufficient funds at issuance and was later depleted by subsequent debits, §476a does not apply. Bank timing and clearance order matter.
Funds Element
Post-Dated Check / Security
Post-dated checks and checks issued as security are excluded from §476a — the payee accepted the timing risk.
Post-Dated Exclusion
Civil Compromise (§1377)
Bad-check cases involving private payees are eligible for civil compromise under §1377 — full restitution plus victim consent results in dismissal.
PC §1377
Judicial Diversion (§1001.95)
Misdemeanor §476a qualifies for §1001.95 judicial diversion — successful restitution and completion result in dismissal.
Restitution-Based Reduction
Full restitution before filing or plea frequently supports §17(b) reduction, wobbler reduction, or dismissal.
Restitution Leverage
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §476a Insufficient Funds Check Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
Typical case flow through the LA County courts.
- 1
Step 1 — Notice / Demand
Payee's Civ. Code §1719 demand letter typically precedes filing — 30-day cure window.
- 2
Step 2 — Investigation / Filing
DA Bad Check Unit or CIty Attorney files. Aggregation across bounced checks determines wobbler status.
- 3
Step 3 — Arraignment
Not-guilty plea; restitution and civil-compromise negotiations open immediately.
- 4
Step 4 — Discovery
Bank records, check images, deposit history, and payee-communication records.
- 5
Step 5 — Restitution / Compromise Negotiation
Most §476a cases resolve through restitution, civil compromise (§1377), or §1001.95 diversion.
- 6
Step 6 — Trial or Plea
Trial defense focuses on intent and knowledge. Plea outcomes target misdemeanor reduction and dismissal.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §476a Insufficient Funds Check Cases
Filings are venued in the courthouse serving the payee or issuance location.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Insufficient Funds Check Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with insufficient funds check and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §476a in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Insufficient Funds Check Cases Throughout LA County
09 — FAQs
PC §476a Insufficient Funds Check Questions — Los Angeles
What is PC §476a?
PC §476a is California's insufficient-funds check statute. It punishes willfully issuing a check with intent to defraud, knowing at the time that the account has insufficient funds to cover it. It is a wobbler where aggregate check amount exceeds $950 or the defendant has a qualifying prior.
How is §476a different from §476?
§476 covers fictitious or altered checks (fabricated instruments, false accounts, or forged amounts). §476a covers real-account checks with insufficient funds. Different elements, different defenses.
Is a bounced check automatically a §476a violation?
No. §476a requires proof of (1) knowledge of insufficient funds at issuance and (2) intent to defraud. Innocent overdrafts, bookkeeping errors, and bank-timing bounces are not violations.
What is the $950 threshold?
The wobbler trigger. Bad checks aggregating $950 or less are misdemeanors; over $950 aggregate can be filed as felonies. The threshold aggregates all bad checks in the same case.
Can civil compromise dismiss a §476a case?
Yes. PC §1377 allows civil compromise for §476a where the victim is a private payee (not government). Full restitution plus victim consent results in court-approved dismissal.
Does §476a affect immigration status?
Yes. §476a is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) — deportable / inadmissible risk. Immigration-safe plea alternatives (theft, civil resolution, or dismissal) should be pursued.
What about post-dated checks?
Post-dated checks and checks issued as security are generally excluded from §476a — the payee accepted the timing risk. Case-specific analysis required.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with PC §476a Bad Check? Call Rubin Law.
§476a is a CIMT wobbler with severe immigration and licensing consequences. Rubin Law, P.C. defends by challenging intent, litigating civil compromise under §1377, and negotiating restitution-based dismissal. Call (213) 723-2337.