Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 USCS § 371, 18 USCS § 1001, 21 USCS § 846, 21 USCS § 963, and 21 USCS § 841 were supported by sufficient evidence; rational juror drawing all permissible inferences could have found beyond reasonable doubt that defendant made materially false writing to U.S. Customs Service on matter within agency's jurisdiction, and jury could have found that Customs agents actually received letters given evidence that Customs seized, and therefore inspected, five of defendant's drug shipments with forged letter attached. United States v Finze (2007, CA9 Nev) 2007 US App LEXIS 17384.

10. Title 16

Magnuson Act's criminal false statement provision, 16 USCS § 1857(1)(I), does not preempt 18 USCS § 1001, general federal criminal false statement provision. United States v Tomeny (1998, CA11 Fla) 144 F3d 749, 11 FLW Fed C 1513.

Count which is based on 18 USCS § 1001 is not controversy arising under any title of Stabilization Act or under regulations or orders issued thereunder. United States v Zang (1981, Em Ct App) 645 F2d 999.

Defendant two's argument that perjury and false statement charges against her were multiplicitous had merit as perjury counts duplicated three additional charges of making false statements; there was no basis to conclude that Congress intended 18 USCS § 1001 to penalize false grand jury testimony at all, let alone to permit cumulative punishment or cumulative prosecution for such testimony under 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 1623. United States v Butler (2004, SD NY) 351 F Supp 2d 121.

11. Title 18

That similar misconduct involving proof of other elements is covered by 18 USCS § 1723 which provides more lenient penalty, does not bar prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Baumgarten (1962, CA2 NY) 300 F2d 807, cert den (1962) 370 US 917, 8 L Ed 2d 499, 82 S Ct 1556.

Defendants' contention that they should have been charged under 18 USCS § 1919, which prohibits false statements to obtain unemployment benefits for prior federal service, and not under the general fraudulent statement provision, 18 USCS § 1001, which carries a greater penalty, is without merit, there being no indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to bar application of § 1001 to conduct also punished by § 1919. United States v Burnett (1974, CA9 Cal) 505 F2d 815, cert den (1975) 420 US 966, 43 L Ed 2d 445, 95 S Ct 1361.

18 USCS §§ 287, 1001, 1341, and 1343 are not mutually exclusive insofar as prosecution is concerned. United States v Computer Sciences Corp. (1982, CA4 Va) 689 F2d 1181, 68 ALR Fed 783, cert den (1983) 459 US 1105, 74 L Ed 2d 953, 103 S Ct 729 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by Busby v Crown Supply (1990, CA4 Va) 896 F2d 833, 114 CCH LC P 12032).

Conviction under both 18 USCS § 1001 and 18 USCS § 1542 for same conduct is proper where each provision requires proof of one fact that other does not. United States v Ramos (1984, CA11 Fla) 725 F2d 1322, 14 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1537.

Although funds involved are CETA funds and 18 USCS § 665 deals specifically with CETA fund fraud, failure to use more specific statute is not ground for reversal of conviction under statute prohibiting willful false statements in matters within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States (18 USCS § 1001). United States v Suggs (1985, CA11 Ga) 755 F2d 1538.

In prosecution for making false statement on Farmers Home Administration loan application, 18 USCS § 1001 was not pre-empted by 18 USCS § 1014; government had discretion to prosecute under either statute. United States v Hartness (1988, CA8 Ark) 845 F2d 158, cert den (1988) 488 US 925, 102 L Ed 2d 326, 109 S Ct 308.

18 USCS § 1001 does not apply to false statements subject to prosecution under 18 USCS § 1920. United States v Richardson (1993, CA9 Cal) 8 F3d 15, 93 CDOS 7964, 93 Daily Journal DAR 13613.

Presence of 18 USCS § 2 allegation does not transform § 1001 into offense requiring multiple actors. United States v Brown (1981, WD Wis) 521 F Supp 511.

Conspiracy to conceal by trick material facts within jurisdiction of treasury department in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 may be prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud United States in violation of 18 USCS § 371. United States v Richter (1985, ND Ill) 610 F Supp 480, affd without op (1986, CA7 Ill) 785 F2d 312 and affd without op (1986, CA7 Ill) 793 F2d 1296, cert den (1986) 479 US 855, 93 L Ed 2d 124, 107 S Ct 191.

Defendant, agent with Federal Bureau of Investigation, was convicted under 18 USCS § 1001, but conduct could have supported conviction for perjury under 18 USCS § 1621 when agent knowingly made false statements to investigators about agent's conduct with alleged murderer, and thus, court determined that USSG § 2J1.3 (2002) was "more apt" guideline for defendant's offense. United States v Anderson (2003, DC Mass) 260 F Supp 2d 310.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's 18 USCS § 1503(a) obstruction of justice conviction on basis of false statements that she gave to Federal Bureau of Investigation, violation of 18 USCS § 1001, where she did not contest that she stated that she believed employee's reported working hours were correct, when in fact she knew of standing order to pay employee for 35 hours regardless of whether she worked zero hours; moreover, defendant also stated that she did not know of any preferential treatment when she knew that employee had not been required to repay loan; such false statements were material; if defendant had been truthful, investigation could have been significantly shortened. United States v Dwyer (2007, CA1 Mass) 2007 US App LEXIS 20259.

Unpublished: Where plain language of witness tampering statute, 18 USCS § 1512(b)(3) made clear that conviction was not required, court rejected defendant's argument that his witness tampering conviction had to be vacated because district court granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on underlying charge that defendant made false statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Davis (2008, CA9 Cal) 2008 US App LEXIS 12861.

12.--Sections 1010 and 1012

One who, not being veteran, ostensibly assisted veterans to purchase homes, but actually purchased houses for his own benefit in veterans' names, concealing facts from housing authorities, was properly convicted of violation of 42 USCS § 1524 and 18 USCS § 1001, and could not complain because he had been charged under 18 USCS § 1001 rather than 18 USCS § 1012, because, in prosecution resulting from single act which violates more than one statute, government may elect to prosecute under either. Ehrlich v United States (1956, CA5 Ga) 238 F2d 481.

Indictments charging defendant with knowingly making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations in the submission of several fictitious bids for construction on property owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were properly brought under 18 USCS § 1001 even though such indictments could have also been brought under either 18 USCS § 1010 or 1012; there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress, by creating the specific HUD false claim statutes, that is §§ 1010 and 1012, intended to disallow use of the more general false statement statute, § 1001, with its harsher penalties. United States v Brown (1973, CA9 Wash) 482 F2d 1359.

Defendant's contention that he should have been charged and sentenced under 18 USCS § 1012, a misdemeanor statute expressly proscribing frauds against HUD, rather than under the general felony fraud statute, 18 USCS § 1001, was without merit; § 1012 was not intended to serve as exclusive criminal remedy for frauds against HUD so as to prevent use of the harsher general statute, § 1001, where applicable. United States v Librach (1975, CA8 Mo) 520 F2d 550.

Although false statement made to Department of Housing and Urban Development is actionable under both 18 USCS §§ 1010 and 1001, only § 1001 governs fraudulent schemes. United States v Waechter (1985, CA6 Mich) 771 F2d 974.

Violation of 18 USCS § 1010 is not a lesser included offense of 18 USCS § 1001 even though it carries a lesser sentence, since there is no element of violation under § 1001 that is not also found in violation of § 1010; 18 USCS § 1010 is merely another statute under which same conduct prohibited by § 1001 can be punished. United States v Corsino (1987, CA1 Puerto Rico) 812 F2d 26 (criticized in United States v McGuire (1996, CA5 Miss) 96-1 USTC P 50163).

Indictment which, in effect, charged that FHA mortgage insurance was obtained as result of certifications submitted to the FHA by defendant which falsely represented condition of the properties in question, was not faulty on the theory that it charged defendant under a statute of general application, that is, 18 USCS § 1001, whereas a statute of specific application carrying lesser penalty, that is, 18 USCS § 1010, was available. United States v Clearfield (1973, ED Pa) 358 F Supp 564.

13.--Section 1341

There is nothing in either language or legislative history of false statements statute, 18 USCS § 1001, reflecting any Congressional intent to create hierarchy of sanctions that would preempt application of mail fraud statute, 18 USCS § 1341, to submission of false statements to government agency through use of mails; mail fraud statute proscribes different conduct and requires proof of different elements than false statements statute and government may prosecute defendant under both statutes. United States v Weatherspoon (1978, CA7 Ill) 581 F2d 595 (criticized in Truck Ins. Exch. v Kafka (1995, ND Ill) RICO Bus Disp Guide (CCH) P 8873).

18 USCS §§ 287, 1001, 1341, and 1343 are not mutually exclusive insofar as prosecution is concerned. United States v Computer Sciences Corp. (1982, CA4 Va) 689 F2d 1181, 68 ALR Fed 783, cert den (1983) 459 US 1105, 74 L Ed 2d 953, 103 S Ct 729 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by Busby v Crown Supply (1990, CA4 Va) 896 F2d 833, 114 CCH LC P 12032).

Fact that certain acts may be subject to prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 does not bar prosecution of frauds against government under 18 USCS § 1341 since to obtain conviction under mail fraud statute government must prove elements not required under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v La Bar (1981, MD Pa) 506 F Supp 1267, affd without op (1982, CA3 Pa) 688 F2d 826, cert den (1982) 459 US 945, 74 L Ed 2d 202, 103 S Ct 260, reh den (1982) 459 US 1093, 74 L Ed 2d 941, 103 S Ct 583.

As matter of statutory construction, more general mail fraud statute, 18 USCS § 1341, supplants 18 USCS §§ 287 and 1001 insofar as fraudulent claims against United States are concerned. United States v La Bar (1981, MD Pa) 521 F Supp 203, 8 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1704, affd without op (1982, CA3 Pa) 688 F2d 826, cert den (1982) 459 US 945, 74 L Ed 2d 202, 103 S Ct 260, reh den (1982) 459 US 1093, 74 L Ed 2d 941, 103 S Ct 583 and affd without op (1985, CA3 Pa) 770 F2d 1076 and affd without op (1985, CA3 Pa) 770 F2d 1076 and affd without op (1985, CA3 Pa) 770 F2d 1076 and affd without op (1985, CA3 Pa) 770 F2d 1077.

14. Title 19

Defendants are summarily liable in violation of 19 USCS § 1592 with regard to intentional submission of fraudulent information to Customs Service in attempt to enter foreign orange juice concentrate into United States commerce, because material facts established by defendants' own admissions in plea bargaining criminal charge under 18 USCS § 1001 are binding in this action, and government's receipt of restitution under 18 USCS § 3663 does not exhaust its right to pursue additional civil penalties. United States v Loesche (1988) 12 CIT 599, 688 F Supp 649.

Importers are collaterally estopped from denying their civil liability for fraudulent entries under 19 USCS § 1592, where (1) they previously entered guilty pleas in criminal action involving same entries under 18 USCS § 1001 and (2) facts admitted in pleas satisfy elements of fraudulent violation of § 1592. United States v Daewoo Int'l (America) Corp. (1988) 12 CIT 889, 696 F Supp 1534, mod on other grounds (1988) 13 CIT 76, 704 F Supp 1067.

Although United States Department of Labor ultimately certified employees for trade adjustment assistance benefits, United States Court of International Trade criticized Labor for its perfunctory investigation, for its reliance solely on employer's official in its investigation whose statements proved to be false or inaccurate; while not imposing any sanction, United States Court of International Trade noted that company officials and displaced workers alike could be held liable for material false statements made to United States Department of Labor whether those statements were oral or in writing, and even if they were not made under oath, 18 USCS § 1001 subjected to fine and/or imprisonment for up to five years anyone who in any matter within jurisdiction of executive, legislative, or judicial branch of Government of United States, knowingly and willfully makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. Former Emples. of BMC Software, Inc. v United States Sec'y of Labor (2006, CIT) 454 F Supp 2d 1306.

15. Title 26

Indictment under tax law charging willful attempt to evade and defeat taxes by making false and fraudulent statements to treasury department is good in spite of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Beacon Brass Co. (1952) 344 US 43, 97 L Ed 61, 73 S Ct 77, 52-2 USTC P 9528, 42 AFTR 654.

Enactment of 26 USCS § 7206 did not repeal by implication 18 USCS § 1001 as to internal revenue matters. Cohen v United States (1953, CA9 Cal) 201 F2d 386, 53-1 USTC P 9165, 43 AFTR 161, cert den (1953) 345 US 951, 97 L Ed 1374, 73 S Ct 864.

Simultaneous conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001, derived from filing of falsified labor reports, and under 26 USCS § 7204 for falsely filing W-2 forms did not violate double jeopardy, although there was some statutory overlap, since 2 prosecutions were for separate courses of conduct, for which separate and discreet sanctions and punishment were applicable. United States v Hughes (1992, CA6 Ohio) 964 F2d 536, 122 CCH LC P 10306, 70 AFTR 2d 5059, reh, en banc, den (1992, CA6) 1992 US App LEXIS 17659 and cert den (1993) 507 US 909, 122 L Ed 2d 653, 113 S Ct 1254, 124 CCH LC P 10559 and cert den (1994) 510 US 1165, 127 L Ed 2d 541, 114 S Ct 1191, 127 CCH LC P 11026.

16.--Section 7207

Defendants who submitted to Internal Revenue Service false writings, in form of altered checks and other documents, to substantiate improper deductions in their income tax returns, were properly charged under 18 USCS § 1001 instead of under 26 USCS § 7207 which is misdemeanor statute specifically dealing with delivering any document to IRS known to be fraudulent or false. United States v Bettenhausen (1974, CA10 Kan) 499 F2d 1223, 74-2 USTC P 9544, 34 AFTR 2d 5415.

Government could prosecute practicing accountant, who made false statement to IRS auditor regarding charitable contribution by client, for felony under 18 USCS § 1001, rather than for misdemeanor under 26 USCS § 7207. United States v Fern (1983, CA11 Fla) 696 F2d 1269, 83-1 USTC P 9151, 51 AFTR 2d 819.

17. Title 31

Congress did not intend to preempt prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 by enacting 31 USCS § 1058. United States v Fitzgibbon (1978, CA10 Colo) 576 F2d 279, cert den (1978) 439 US 910, 58 L Ed 2d 256, 99 S Ct 279.

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 in making materially false statement to federal official is included offense within conviction under Reporting Act contained in 31 USCS §§ 5316, 5322, and may not be used to enhance penalty under § 5322. United States v Booky (1984, CA9 Hawaii) 733 F2d 1335.

Proceedings under False Claims Act (former 31 USCS §§ 231 et seq.) are civil in nature and did not subject defendant who had pled guilty to violation of 18 USCS § 1001 to double jeopardy. United States v Annicchiarico (1963, DC NJ) 238 F Supp 339.

18.--Section 3729

When top officers of corporate defense subcontractor plead guilty to submitting false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, officers are collaterally estopped from denying civil liability under False Claims Act (31 USCS § 3729); nor may corporation deny its liability. United States v Di Bona (1984, ED Pa) 614 F Supp 40.

Defendant's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 for filing false statement does not prove that government relied on his false statements by collateral estoppel so as to subject him to civil liability under 31 USCS § 3729(a)(1), where relevant false statement was that federally guaranteed loan applicant had never been criminally charged or convicted when in fact he had, because Small Business Administration's (SBA) independent knowledge of applicant's criminal record predated its approval of secondary participation agreement, applicant's criminal record did not necessarily disqualify him from acquiring loan, and SBA's choosing not to raise material misrepresentation before approving secondary purchase of loan implies that SBA did not rely on misinformation regarding applicant's criminal record. United States v Hill (1987, ND Fla) 676 F Supp 1158.

Defendant's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 for filing false statements also supports his civil liability for violating 31 USCS § 3729(a)(1) on basis of collateral estoppel, where false statements concerned prospective borrowers' down payments in transactions for which government loans were to issue and his own net worth as personal guarantor of one loan, because no reasonable jury could determine other than that government agencies relied on such statements in approving loans. United States v Hill (1987, ND Fla) 676 F Supp 1158.

Where defendant president of defendant contractor was convicted under 18 USCS §§ 371, 1001, 1341 of submitting false claims, and convictions were affirmed, convictions established that president knowingly presented false records to get claim paid or approved in government housing project; estoppel applied in False Claims Act, 31 USCS §§ 3729-3733, qui tam action filed by plaintiff housing authority under 31 USCS § 3729(a)(1), (2), in which U.S. intervened. United States ex rel. V.I. Hous. Auth. v Coastal Gen. Constr. Servs. Corp. (2004, DC VI) 45 VI 428, 299 F Supp 2d 483.

19.--Section 5322

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 in making materially false statement to federal official is included offense within conviction under Reporting Act contained in 31 USCS §§ 5316, 5322, and may not be used to enhance penalty under § 5322. United States v Booky (1984, CA9 Hawaii) 733 F2d 1335.

Conviction under 31 USCS § 5322(a) for failing to report currency, does not preclude prosecution under 31 USCS § 1001 for making false statement even though same conduct caused violation of both statutory provisions, because proof of currency report violation does not necessarily include proof of trick, scheme or device to conceal material information. United States v Salinas-Ceron (1985, CA9 Cal) 755 F2d 726.

20. Title 42

One who, not being veteran, ostensibly assisted veterans to purchase homes, but actually purchased houses for his own benefit in veterans' names, concealing facts from housing authorities, was properly convicted of violation of 42 USCS § 1524 and 18 USCS § 1001, and could not complain because he had been charged under 18 USCS § 1001 rather than 18 USCS § 1012, because, in prosecution resulting from single act which violates more than one statute, government may elect to prosecute under either. Ehrlich v United States (1956, CA5 Ga) 238 F2d 481.

Enactment of 42 USCS §§ 1395 et seq. subsequent to 18 USCS § 1001 was not designed to repeal § 1001, nor was §§ 1395 et seq. designed to be exclusive remedy for making of false and material statements; so that prosecution under § 1001 is permissible even in view of other overlapping and more specific false statements statutes. United States v Gordon (1977, CA8 Ark) 548 F2d 743.

Defendant physician may be prosecuted for making false statement on claims submitted under Medicaid and Medicare programs under 18 USCS §§ 287 and 1001 rather than under specific provisions of 42 USCS § 1395nn which covers Medicare fraud. United States v Adler (1980, CA8 Mo) 623 F2d 1287.

Insurer properly denied insured's claim under Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued pursuant to National Flood Insurance Act, 42 USCS §§ 4001 et seq., because insured did not submit sworn proof of loss as required under 44 CFR § 61.4, app. A(2)(J)(4); signed proof of loss was not rendered "sworn" due to possibility of criminal penalties for false statements under 18 USCS § 1001. Evanoff v Std. Fire Ins. Co. (2008, CA6 Ohio) 534 F3d 516, 2008 FED App 260P.

In Medicaid fraud context, 42 USCS § 1396h does not preempt applicability of more general criminal statutes such as 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Simon (1981, ED Pa) 510 F Supp 232.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: To sustain conviction under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) defendant made statement; (2) statement was false; (3) defendant knew statement was false; (4) false statement was material; and (5) statement related to any matter within jurisdiction of executive, legislative, or judicial branch of U.S. Government. United States v Walls (2005, CA6 Tenn) 134 Fed Appx 825.

Unpublished: Congressional intent does not foreclose prosecutions under 18 USCS § 1001 where 18 USCS § 7413(c)(2)(A) may also apply; where defendant allegedly concealed presence of asbestos at oil refinery, defendant was properly charged under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(1) because 42 USCS § 7413(c)(2)(A) was not sole and exclusive means by which Government could prosecute making false statement to EPA in violation of Clean Air Act, 42 USCS § 7401 et seq. United States v Shaw (2005, CA10 Kan) 150 Fed Appx 863, 61 Envt Rep Cas 1363.

21.--Section 408

Where a doctor was accused of filing false and fraudulent applications for payment for professional services rendered Medicare patients, the alleged offense fell within the terms of either 18 USCS § 1001 or 42 USCS § 408(c), and prosecution could be had under either at the discretion of the prosecutor. United States v Chakmakis (1971, CA5 Fla) 449 F2d 315.

Prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 for submission of false Medicare claims was proper, and not barred by enactment of 42 USCS § 408. United States v Radetsky (1976, CA10 Colo) 535 F2d 556, cert den (1976) 429 US 820, 50 L Ed 2d 81, 97 S Ct 68 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Daily (1990, CA10 Kan) 921 F2d 994).

Fact that Social Security Act and the penal provisions thereof (42 USCS § 408) was passed subsequently to the fraud and false statements provisions (18 USCS § 1001) and both cover the same acts does not prevent prosecution under the earlier, fraud and false statements, provision. United States v Matanky (1972, CD Cal) 346 F Supp 116, affd (1973, CA9 Cal) 482 F2d 1319, cert den (1973) 414 US 1039, 38 L Ed 2d 329, 94 S Ct 539, reh den (1974) 414 US 1138, 38 L Ed 2d 764, 94 S Ct 885.