You are told a document with your name on it was signed electronically. An investigator, bank, or employer points to an audit trail and says, “The system shows you signed this.” You know you did not, or at least not the way they are describing it, but the technology feels mysterious and impossible to argue with while you worry about criminal charges in Binghamton.
In that moment, it is easy to feel boxed in. E-signature platforms look official, and their records look neat and precise. Many people assume that if the log says you signed, the case is closed. In reality, those systems are built on layers of authentication choices, shortcuts, and sometimes sloppy practices that can leave a lot of room for doubt about who actually clicked the button and why.
At Jackson Bergman, LLP, we approach these cases from both sides of the courtroom. Our attorneys are former prosecutors who now focus on criminal defense in Binghamton and surrounding New York courts. We have dealt with complex forensic evidence for years, and we know how investigators rely on digital records such as e-signature logs. In this guide, we explain how these platforms really work, where they are vulnerable, and how those weaknesses can shape a defense when someone faces e-signature fraud or forgery allegations.
How E-Signature Platforms Actually Identify a Signer
E-signature platforms are often treated as if they could see the person at the keyboard. In reality, they identify a signer through a series of technical steps that rely heavily on email access and basic login credentials. Typically, a sender uploads a document, enters one or more email addresses, and the platform emails a link to each designated signer. Anyone who can open that email and follow the link is already halfway to completing a binding signature.
Once the link is clicked, the platform may ask the signer to confirm a name or initials and click a series of “sign” or “accept” buttons. Some accounts require the signer to log in with a password first. Others allow signing directly from the emailed link without a separate login. Many businesses choose convenience over strict security when configuring these options, which means possession of the right email or password can be more important in practice than the true identity of the person doing the signing.
Platforms generate an “audit trail” or “certificate of completion” when the process is finished. These records usually include the signer’s typed name, the email address used, IP addresses, time stamps, and sometimes the device or browser type. That information looks precise on paper, but each item is simply a record of what the system saw during the session, not a direct observation of a particular human being. The platform assumes that the person with access to the email or account is the authorized signer, which is often a risky assumption in real workplaces and families.
New York law treats properly authenticated electronic signatures as valid, but criminal charges for forgery or fraud focus on something different, such as whether a document is “false,” whether the signer was truly authorized, and whether there was an intent to deceive. As defense attorneys who have handled complex forensic evidence, we dig beneath the surface of these audit trails. We ask how the account was configured, who had access to the relevant email or password, and whether the platform’s assumptions actually hold up when compared to the legal elements the prosecution must prove.
Common E-Signature Weaknesses That Lead To Fraud Allegations
Most e-signature fraud allegations do not start with a hacker in another country. They usually arise from everyday weaknesses in how accounts are set up and used. One of the biggest problems is weak or reused passwords on accounts that control sensitive documents. If a person uses the same password across email, work systems, and e-signature platforms, a single compromise can unlock everything. Once someone else has access to that email or login, sending and signing documents in that person’s name may be as simple as clicking a few links.
Unsecured or shared email accounts create another opening. Many families and small businesses let several people use the same email login on multiple devices. Others stay signed in to email on shared workstations, so anyone walking up to the computer has full access. Since many platforms deliver signing invitations and verification links by email, anyone with that shared access can receive and act on those requests, even if they are not the person whose name eventually appears on the document.
In offices throughout Binghamton and across New York, it is common for a single e-signature account to be shared among multiple staff members. Assistants may send documents on behalf of a supervisor, or staff may log into a shared “admin” account that is tied to a single email address. From the platform’s point of view, every action appears to come from that one account. From a legal point of view, this makes it much harder to say with certainty who authorized or completed a signature on a particular date.
Network and device context adds more uncertainty. Many audit trails include an IP address, which is essentially a network label. That address might belong to a home router used by several household members, a business network shared by dozens of employees in downtown Binghamton, or a public Wi-Fi at a coffee shop. Mobile carriers often route traffic from many devices through the same visible IP address. Some legitimate users also connect through virtual private networks. All of these situations make it risky to treat an IP address as a fingerprint for one person.
Our role in these cases is to turn these common weaknesses into structured questions for the prosecution’s case. We look at how passwords were managed, how many people had practical access to the relevant email or account, and which devices could have been used. We then compare that information to what the audit trail actually shows. This is one way we identify weaknesses in the opposition’s narrative before it ever reaches a jury.
Why Audit Trails Are Not Automatic Proof Of Forgery
When someone confronts you with an audit trail, it can feel like there is nothing left to say. The document lists your name, your email, an IP address near your home or office, and a precise timestamp. Prosecutors and investigators often describe these records as if they were video footage of you pressing “sign.” In reality, audit trails are a collection of technical facts that need interpretation, and that interpretation is rarely as simple as it first appears.
An audit trail can show that, at a certain time, a device using a particular internet connection followed a link sent to a certain email address and completed a series of clicks. It cannot show who was physically at the keyboard, whether two people were present, whether someone had the account holder’s permission, or whether someone else had long-standing access to that device or email. In workplaces where one computer is shared, or in households where passwords are shared, the system does not distinguish between different users on the same machine.
IP address evidence is especially easy to overstate. A single business IP can be used by many employees in an office in Binghamton. Mobile phones often connect through changing networks as people move around town. Public Wi-Fi networks in apartment buildings or commercial spaces can be used by anyone within range. When we see an audit trail that lists an IP address, we focus on what that address really represents and whether it could reasonably be associated with several possible users, not just our client.
Another problem is incomplete or selectively produced logs. Investigators may obtain a PDF copy of the signed document and a basic completion certificate, but not the deeper system logs that show failed login attempts, changes to account settings, or unusual access from new locations. Without that context, it is easy to tell a simple story that fits the accusation. As former prosecutors, we know that case pressures and time constraints can lead to these shortcuts.
We push back by asking targeted questions and requesting specific technical data. How was multi-factor authentication configured for this account at the time? Were any other devices logged in? Has this email or account been used from different locations within a short period? When audit trails are treated as the starting point for questions, not the final word, it often becomes clear that there is more than one reasonable explanation for what they show.
How New York Forgery and Fraud Laws Apply To E-Signatures
New York’s forgery and fraud laws were written long before e-signature platforms became common, but prosecutors now apply those statutes to electronic documents frequently. At a basic level, forgery charges focus on whether someone created, completed, or altered a written instrument in a way that made it false and whether they acted with intent to defraud. When the document in question was signed electronically, the prosecution still has to prove those same core elements, just in a digital context.
For example, a person might face charges involving criminal possession of a forged instrument if they are accused of using a contract, loan document, or court filing that contains an unauthorized electronic signature. Identity theft charges may come into play if the state claims they used another person’s identifying information in the process, such as signing documents in a relative’s name or using someone else’s credentials without consent. These are serious accusations that can affect liberty, employment, and professional licensing.
In e-signature cases, the question of whether an instrument is “forged” often turns on authorization. Did the person whose name appears on the document actually consent to the signature, even if someone else clicked for them? Did the account holder give standing permission to an assistant or family member to handle documents on their behalf? Was there a misunderstanding about what the document contained? These nuances matter when the law draws a line between a false instrument and a genuine one.
Intent is just as important. The prosecution must typically show that the accused meant to deceive another person or to gain a benefit or cause a loss. A sloppily handled e-signature process inside an office, where staff routinely sign for each other with a supervisor’s knowledge, looks very different from a calculated scheme to steal funds using forged loan documents. Our work involves bringing those distinctions into focus so that courts and juries see the difference.
Because our practice is rooted in a detailed understanding of state and federal court procedures, we are careful about how we connect technical facts to these legal elements. In Binghamton courts, that can mean filing motions that challenge how electronic records are admitted, or arguing that the state’s evidence does not sufficiently prove a “false instrument” or intent to defraud. It can also mean negotiating charges based on what the digital trail truly supports, rather than what it appears to show at first glance.
How Prosecutors Build E-Signature Fraud Cases In Binghamton
Most e-signature cases start with a complaint. A bank questions a loan application, an employer discovers a questionable HR or payroll document, or a family member disputes a real estate or family law form. That complaint reaches law enforcement or a prosecutor’s office, which then begins gathering records. Understanding this process helps you see what is happening behind the scenes when you are being questioned or investigated.
Typically, investigators begin by collecting the disputed document and any internal records from the complaining institution. They may then reach out to the e-signature platform for a copy of the completed document and the associated audit trail. At this early stage, the records produced are often limited to surface-level information. The focus is on tying the signature to a particular name, email, or account, not on exploring who had practical access to that account or how it was secured.
From there, prosecutors often interview witnesses who received the signed document or who were involved in the transaction. They may also question the person accused, sometimes under the guise of “getting your side of the story.” Without legal guidance, many people try to explain shared passwords, casual office practices, or unusual circumstances in a way that seems reasonable to them. Unfortunately, those explanations can be misunderstood and later used to support an inference of intent to deceive.
As former prosecutors, we understand how these decisions are made in real time. We know that case loads, deadlines, and limited technical training can all push investigators toward simple narratives. The audit trail lists your email and an IP address that looks close to your home or office in Binghamton, so, from their perspective, you must have signed. Unless someone challenges that assumption, the case is likely to move toward charges.
Our goal is to intervene before that story hardens. When we get involved early, we can help guide what records are requested from platforms, how they are interpreted, and what context is provided to the prosecution. We can also manage interactions with law enforcement so you are not put in a position where casual comments about your account or devices are later portrayed as admissions of guilt.
Defense Strategies That Expose E-Signature Platform Flaws
Defending against an e-signature fraud accusation is not about arguing with technology in general. It is about digging into the specific platform, account, and set of events in your case, then comparing them to what the law actually requires the state to prove. That starts with preservation of evidence. E-signature platforms, email providers, and devices do not keep every detail forever. Logs can roll over, and settings can be changed. We act quickly to secure the fullest possible record before anything disappears.
That preservation often includes more than just the obvious documents. It can involve requesting detailed platform logs beyond the initial audit trail, copying current account configuration screens, and securing emails related to invitations, confirmations, or password changes. On the device side, it can include preserving relevant data from computers, phones, or tablets that may show who used them and when. We then compare these sources to see whether they tell a consistent story or one with gaps and contradictions.
In appropriate cases, we work with digital forensic professionals to analyze technical traces that go beyond what most people ever see. That might include a closer look at IP address usage across time, signs of account compromise or unusual login patterns, or evidence that a particular device was not used at the time the platform claims a signature occurred. Because our attorneys have a strong background in handling complex forensic evidence, we know how to use these findings effectively in court and in negotiations.
Cross-examining platform representatives and investigators is another key strategy. Many witnesses speak confidently about audit trails without being fully familiar with how the system was configured for this particular account or how common practices like shared passwords can impact attribution. We prepare targeted questions about multi-factor authentication settings, log retention policies, and how many people realistically had access to the account. This can reveal that what sounded like a precise record is actually built on a series of assumptions.
Our experience identifying weaknesses in opposing cases guides this process. We look for inconsistencies in statements about who used which accounts, unexplained gaps in the logs, or technical details that do not match typical user behavior. When those issues are brought forward clearly and tied to the legal standards for forgery and fraud, they can create real doubt about whether the state has met its burden, and they can open the door to reduced charges or different resolutions.
What To Do Right Now If You Face An E-Signature Fraud Investigation
If you are already under investigation or have been arrested in Binghamton in connection with an e-signed document, your next steps matter. One of the most common mistakes we see is a person trying to “clear things up” with investigators, employers, or banks before speaking with a lawyer. Explaining that others had your password, that staff often signed for you, or that you did not read the document fully can be twisted into evidence of carelessness or intent, depending on how it is recorded and later described.
Another key step is preserving what you can, without tampering with evidence. Do not delete emails or messages that relate to the document, your account, or any shared-use arrangements. Save copies of emails from the e-signature platform, including invitations, reminders, and confirmations. If you can safely view your account settings without changing anything, consider capturing images that show how authentication and notifications are currently configured. Then talk with counsel about the best way to secure and present this information.
You should also think carefully before handing over devices or account credentials. There are lawful ways for investigators to seek access to data, and there are legal protections in place for you. Cooperating without guidance can expose far more personal information than is necessary and can complicate your defense. As attorneys based in Binghamton, we know how local agencies and prosecutors typically handle these requests, and we can advise you on what is appropriate in your situation.
Finally, reach out to an e-signature fraud lawyer who understands both the technology and the local criminal courts. The earlier we are involved, the more we can do to shape how evidence is gathered and interpreted. We can communicate with investigators on your behalf, work to preserve critical digital records, and begin building a defense that looks beyond the surface of an audit trail to the real story of what happened.
Talk With a Binghamton E-Signature Fraud Lawyer About Your Case
E-signature platforms have made it easy to sign important documents from almost anywhere, and they have also made it easier for misunderstandings and misuse to turn into serious criminal accusations. An audit trail that looks simple on its face may hide a complex mix of shared accounts, weak authentication, and incomplete records. You do not have to accept the state’s interpretation of that data as the final word.
At Jackson Bergman, LLP, our team of former prosecutors applies a detailed understanding of both New York criminal law and digital evidence to e-signature forgery and fraud cases in Binghamton and surrounding courts. We focus on how the system was actually used, who really had access, and whether the state can truly prove intent and authorization beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are facing questions or charges related to an electronic signature, we are ready to review your situation and discuss practical options for moving forward.
Call (607) 367-7055 to speak with a criminal defense attorney about a potential e-signature fraud case.
