## Facts

- James Daniel McGovern (a/k/a James D. Perino) owed John Thomas Scull about $1,800, and the two agreed on a plan to obtain money through Citibank traveler’s checks and then obtain replacements by falsely reporting the checks lost.
- McGovern purchased $2,400 in Citibank traveler’s checks from a bank in Niagara Falls, New York.
- As part of the purchase, McGovern signed an agreement stating that the purchaser would sign each check at purchase and “countersign each check in the lower left corner when cashed, in the presence of the person cashing it.”
- McGovern traveled from New York to Erie, Pennsylvania with the traveler’s checks.
- In Erie, McGovern met Scull and worked with him on duplicating McGovern’s signature so Scull could sign McGovern’s name as the checks’ countersignature.
- Scull went to two Erie banks and a store, presented McGovern’s driver’s license as identification, countersigned McGovern’s name on the traveler’s checks, and obtained approximately $2,400.
- After the checks were cashed, McGovern reported to New York police that the traveler’s checks had been stolen from his vehicle.
- The next day, McGovern reported the loss to Citibank, and Citibank issued $2,400 in replacement checks under its refund policy.
- McGovern and Scull were charged under paragraph four of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 for transporting in interstate commerce traveler’s checks bearing a forged countersignature with unlawful or fraudulent intent.
- After a bench trial in the Western District of Pennsylvania, both defendants were convicted and appealed, arguing the government failed to prove the common-law forgery required for § 2314 because McGovern allegedly authorized Scull to sign his name.

## Issues

1. Whether traveler’s checks “bear[] a forged countersignature” under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 when the purchaser claims he authorized a confederate to sign the purchaser’s name, but the checks were negotiated as if the purchaser personally countersigned them.
2. Whether the evidence supported convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 for transporting traveler’s checks in interstate commerce with unlawful or fraudulent intent.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the traveler’s checks bore “forged countersignature[s]” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, notwithstanding McGovern’s claimed authorization.
- The court affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in United States v. McGovern, 505 F. Supp. 195 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

## Legal Principles

- For paragraph four of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the government must prove traveler’s checks bearing a forged countersignature were transported in interstate commerce with unlawful or fraudulent intent.
- The “forged countersignature” element is evaluated in light of common-law forgery concepts and the function of the countersignature in traveler’s checks as a security device for issuers and payees.
- A private agreement between co-schemers that one may sign the other’s name does not prevent a finding of forgery where the signature is used to pass the instrument as if it were executed by the named purchaser in the manner required for negotiation.
- Where traveler’s check documents require the purchaser to countersign in the presence of the person accepting the check, a confederate’s signing of the purchaser’s name to obtain payment can constitute a false making as to the parties being deceived.
- Interstate movement connected to the scheme can satisfy § 2314’s interstate commerce requirement.

## Conclusion

United States v. McGovern, 661 F.2d 27 (1981), upheld bench-trial convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 where McGovern bought Citibank traveler’s checks in New York, traveled to Pennsylvania, and Scull negotiated the checks by countersigning McGovern’s name while presenting McGovern’s identification, after which McGovern falsely reported the checks lost to obtain replacements; the Third Circuit held the checks bore forged countersignatures for purposes of § 2314 despite McGovern’s claimed authorization.
