First, keeping;

Second, by a/an officer/member/employee of a/an corporation/partnership/ association;

Third, any false account of the corporation/partnership/association;

Fourth, with the intent to defraud/(conceal embezzlement/misconduct).

The crimes created by sections 1572, 1573, 1586, 1589, and 1590 differ from the "classic" forgery crimes discussed above because the lie involved relates to the entries in and content of documents, and not to the genuineness of documents. It is not "classic" forgery for the county treasurer to make incorrect entries into the records in his office because the records are genuine even though the entries are false. R. Perkins, Criminal Law 345 (2d ed. 1969). Nor would the county treasurer be guilty of false pretense unless the treasurer used the records, as falsified, to obtain property. Hence, there is need for statutes to fill the gap between "classic" forgery and false pretense.

Section 1586 fills the gap by making it a crime for a county treasurer, among others, to make false entries into the treasurer's own records. Vahlberg v. State, 96 Okl. Cr. 102, 249 P.2d 736 (1952). Moreover, in Collins v. State, 70 Okl. Cr. 340, 106 P.2d 273 (1940), interpreting section 1590, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the Legislature intended by the statute to create a new crime when an officer of a corporation falsifies the corporation's records. These statutes, therefore, fill the gap between "classic" forgery and false pretense, and are meant to protect the accuracy, rather than the genuineness, of certain records.