[r2_pilot]

It's actually kind of boring in this case, per Wikipedia: "In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud)."

[dmurray]

My passport says something like "to alter this instrument, or to utter it so altered, is an offence". This always read strangely to me - it's an offence to have a real passport, but claim it's a fake? But this definition of "utter" makes it work - it's a crime both to falsify the passport, and to attempt to travel with one that has been falsified.

[peter_l_downs]

The distinction is a fact, but I haven't been able to find the _reason_ for the distinction, which I'm hoping is quite charming!

[stvltvs]

My guess is that it allows the prosecution of both the forger and the one who uses the forgery, the utterer I suppose, in cases where they are different individuals.