New Jersey Section 2C:21-3 – Frauds relating to public records and recordable instruments

New Jersey Law Makes Fraudulent Tampering with Public Records a Crime

New Jersey has a law, Section 2C:21-3 of the state criminal code, that specifically prohibits frauds and tampering related to public records and recordable legal instruments like wills, deeds, and mortgages. This law makes it a crime to intentionally destroy, conceal, or falsify certain important documents that get filed with government agencies or otherwise become part of the public record.

Overview of Key Provisions

The New Jersey statute has two main parts that criminalize different fraudulent behaviors when it comes to public records and recordable instruments:

1. Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, or Concealment of Recordable Instruments

Under Section 2C:21-3(a), it is a third-degree crime if someone “destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing” that legally gets publicly recorded, “with purpose to deceive or injure anyone.”

This covers things like:

• Destroying or hiding a will so heirs don’t get their inheritance
• Concealing the deed to a property to commit real estate fraud
• Removing or altering a recorded mortgage to try to avoid foreclosure

The statute aims to protect the integrity of important legal records that establish property rights, dictate inheritance, secure loans, etc.

2. Offering False Instruments for Filing

Section 2C:21-3(b) then makes it a disorderly persons offense “when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information,” someone tries to file or record that document with a public office anyway.

This covers things like:

• Recording a deed with forged signatures to illegally take ownership of property
• Filing articles of incorporation with false names or dates
• Submitting business records with fabricated financial information

So this provision basically prohibits knowingly trying to enter false documentation into the public record.

Grading of Offenses and Penalties

As mentioned above, fraudulent tampering with recordable instruments under 2C:21-3(a) is a third-degree crime. This allows penalties of:

• 3-5 years in prison
• Up to a $15,000 fine

Meanwhile, offering false instruments for filing under 2C:21-3(b) is a disorderly persons offense. This lowers the possible penalties to:

• Up to 6 months in jail
• Up to a $1,000 fine

So the law grades tampering with existing public records as a more serious felony offense, while only making attempts to file false records a misdemeanor.

Real World Examples and Court Cases

There are a variety of real cases where prosecutors have applied New Jersey’s law against public record frauds:

Will Tampering

In State v. Entress, the defendant was convicted under 2C:21-3(a) for changing her deceased mother’s will after she passed away. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

By concealing the legitimate will to redirect the inheritance, the court found the daughter clearly violated the law against destroying or concealing recordable instruments like wills.

Mortgage Fraud

State v. Lee involved a mortgage broker who pleaded guilty to falsifying loan applications with bogus supporting documents to qualify buyers for loans they couldn’t afford.

As these fraudulent mortgage applications were submitted to lenders and intended for public filing if approved, the court held the broker’s actions constituted offering false information for recording under 2C:21-3(b).

Title Washing

In State v. Lubrano, the defendant tried to obtain clean titles for salvaged vehicles by submitting false title applications without disclosing the cars had been totaled.

The court ruled this “title washing” scheme violated 2C:21-3(b) through filing documents with fabricated VIN histories to perpetrate consumer fraud.

So prosecutors have applied New Jersey’s law against public record frauds to a variety of cases involving falsified wills, mortgage documents, vehicle records, and more. The courts have generally upheld charges when defendants clearly tampered with instruments covered by the statute.

Defenses and Challenges

However, convictions under Section 2C:21-3 are not assured. Some defendants have succeeded in challenging charges with certain arguments:

Lack of Specific Intent

In State v. Scribner, an attorney was charged under 2C:21-3(a) when heirs found their mother’s will suspiciously altered after she died.

But the appellate court overturned the lawyer’s conviction because the state failed to definitively prove he personally made the changes, rather than the mother herself or some unknown party.

This case shows prosecutors must establish clear evidence the defendant specifically intended to deceive through unlawful destruction or concealment.

Document Not Covered

In State v. Breetz, the defendant submitted a false car insurance card. But the appeals court dismissed charges under 2C:21-3 because auto insurance cards don’t qualify as recordable instruments or public records under the statute.

So the law only applies to documents like wills, deeds, and mortgages—not every type of potentially forged record.

Constitutional Challenges

Defendants have also made constitutional arguments claiming the statute’s language is overly broad or vague. But New Jersey courts have generally rejected such challenges to uphold the law’s validity.

So while convictions are not guaranteed, charges under Section 2C:21-2 have largely withstood court scrutiny.

Why This Matters

At first glance, cases of deeds gone missing or questionable wills might seem like small-scale, individual disputes.

But New Jersey’s law against public record frauds serves important public policy goals:

• Uphold property rights and estate planning intentions that support economic stability.
• Ensure transparency, accuracy and reliability of records related to home sales, loans, businesses, and inheritance.
• Maintain integrity of filing system so officials, consumers, and companies can trust documents.
• Protect against broader schemes like mortgage fraud and title washing that enable wide-scale deceit.

As demonstrated by the Lee and Lubrano cases above, document falsification can facilitate complex consumer scams and enable financial crimes.

So while Section 2C:21-3 may deal with dry bureaucratic records, preserving honest public registries has real economic and social value for New Jersey residents. It aims to promote stability, transparency, trust, and faith in vital legal assurances.

What This Means for Citizens and Professionals

Since Section 2C:21-3 makes tampering with wills, deeds, and other recordable instruments a potential felony, New Jersey citizens should take care with documents headed for public files.

And professionals like attorneys, title officers, and mortgage brokers must follow best practices for responsible recording and storage procedures. Some tips include:

• Carefully review any document before submission to check for accuracy and validity.
• Properly notarize and witness execution of wills, deeds, and affidavits.
• Maintain organized records of original documents so they remain accessible.
• Audit and back-up digital filing systems to prevent data tampering.
• Watch for red flags like changes in document language, formatting, signatures, or dates.

Following prudent protocols and verifying paper trails can help avoid situations that might trigger charges under 2C:21-3. And if questions emerge about a public filing, enlisting a legal expert to review the instruments can be wise. So in summary, New Jersey’s law against public record frauds serves broad economic goals by protecting the integrity of systems that record wills, deeds, mortgages, and other vital instruments. The statute provides penalties for tampering with existing documents or submitting fabrications. And while legal defenses remain, charges under Section 2C:21-2 have largely withstood court scrutiny. As such, citizens and professionals must take care to validate any paper trail headed for public records