Practical Instruction for Detectives: A Complete Course in Secret Service Study

by Emmerson Wain Manning

In my experience I have found that employers very often are careless in leaving their private check books, and sometimes signed checks, lying around the office where a dishonest employee or other person may have easy access to same. Very often cancelled checks fall into the hands of forgers who promptly take advantage of the handwritings for their ulterior purposes. There are dozens of ways by which a forger may secure them. Workmen who receive their salaries from their employers in the form of checks often are tempted to make use of the signature to forge others and have them cashed.

Under this class of criminal we have also to contend with what are known as bogus check operators, who, when writing and passing checks, use fictitious names of banks and persons; also the worthless check operator, who, after gaining the confidence of his employer, or of some bank, writes and has cashed a check in excess of funds he may have on deposit. The detective must not confuse forged checks with bogus checks. The former is a check upon which is written what purports to be the genuine signature or endorsement of some person and which signature or endorsement was not written by, nor authorized by that person. The latter is one upon which is written the name of some bank which does not exist, or which may be drawn on a bank which does exist but at which bank the drawer of the check has no account. There are also many other forms of checks passed which come under the classification of bogus checks.

Thousands of hotel keepers and merchants are victimized yearly through cashing forged, bogus and worthless checks presented by oily tongued swindlers who tell plausible stories as to how they happen to be out of funds, etc. In order to be successful in handling forgery cases it is essential that the detective be a good judge of human nature and of handwriting. The more technical knowledge he may have of handwriting the better.

If the detective is called upon to investigate, for instance, a case wherein a bank has been defrauded through the operations of a forger, he should endeavor first to see the forged check. A record should be made as to the kind of blank form the check was drawn on, whether or not same was drawn upon an ordinary counter check form, if the form was taken from a private printed check book, or from a pocket check book. Record should be made of the date, the number, on what bank drawn on, in whose favor drawn, the amount, how signed, and how endorsed. Such records should include whether or not the check or any part of it was filled in with pen and ink, with pencil, or with a typewriter.

For the detective’s future reference a tracing should be made of all handwritings on the check, especially of any known to have been written by the forger. By far the best plan is to have both sides of the check photographed. Until such time as it may be needed as evidence in court, a forged check should never be taken away from a bank, carried in the pocket, or handled any more than may be absolutely necessary. The reasons are that in taking such a check from a bank it may become lost, and by carrying it or handling it the writings may become effaced. No chances should be taken in losing or destroying the most important evidence with which to prosecute the forger in case he is apprehended. The detective should place his initials or some other mark upon the original check so that he can positively identify it later if called upon to do so.

At the bank the detective should secure as thorough a description as possible of the person for whom the check was cashed, also should make note of any statements made by the forger as to where he came from, what firm he claimed to represent, or by whom employed, etc. Hotel registers should be examined closely for any registration in handwriting identical with that in the forged check. In order to establish the identity of the forger if not known, or to learn the direction in which he may have gone, the detective may proceed along the lines outlined with regard to burglary cases.

I have handled hundreds of forgery cases and will say that I never found the forger a criminal difficult to apprehend. There are two good reasons why this should be so; the first is that the forger, as a rule, must present himself in person at the bank or other place to secure the money on his check, and by so doing enables the detective to secure a good description of him, how he was dressed, etc.; the second reason is that the forger when filling in his check, or by endorsing it, must necessarily leave behind one of the very best clues for the detection of any criminal, that being his handwriting.

In fully ninety per cent of forgery cases I have handled I have found that the person whose signature was forged could tell, after being questioned, who was responsible for the forgery, and I will show you that the process is very simple and easy. I have in mind a good many cases each of which I cleared up in less than half an hour after arriving upon the ground. My plan was to first secure the best description obtainable of the forger, then a specimen of his handwriting, after which I would see or call upon the person whose signature was forged. To that person I would submit the description and the handwriting, and, as previously stated, ninety per cent of them were able to tell very quickly which employee, relative, friend, acquaintance, or enemy was responsible.

After the detective has learned the identity of a forger but cannot locate him, he should keep in touch, under some good pretext, with the forger’s parents, wife, sweetheart, sister, brother or other relative or friend. The forger will communicate with his sweetheart, friends or relatives sooner or later; it is human nature and I have never seen it fail. When the detective has succeeded in causing the arrest of a forger, or of a suspected forger, he should endeavor to secure a confession from him. I have secured many confessions from forgers by saying to them in a friendly way that the best way for them to prove that they had nothing to do with the forgery with which they were charged, was to write a specimen of the forged check. It is really surprising how many professional forgers will allow themselves to be led into this simple ruse.

While the forger’s mind is laboring under the strain of being under arrest, and seeing possible conviction ahead, he is eager to take advantage of what he thinks is an opportunity to prove that he did not write the forgery and will rely upon his ability to disguise his handwriting sufficiently to mislead the detective. Another reason why he will comply with such a request is that he will fear his refusal to give a specimen of his handwriting will be taken as an evidence of guilt. As a matter of fact I have found no persons in my experience who could successfully disguise their handwriting with their minds under any kind of strain. The forger can therefore be easily led into hanging himself with his own rope, as it were.