Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

88.--Export declarations

False statement included by defendant in shipper's export declaration as means of receiving Department of Commerce permission to export particular electron tube is material for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001 where export license would have been denied had accurate statement been made. United States v Sorkin (1960, CA2 NY) 275 F2d 330, cert den (1960) 362 US 989, 4 L Ed 2d 1022, 80 S Ct 1077.

Undervaluation of items being exported was material for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001, where it was stratagem designed to facilitate scheme to get items out of country, despite fact that there was no pecuniary loss to Government, since false document had natural tendency to influence official decision. United States v Gregg (1987, CA8 Mo) 829 F2d 1430, 23 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1170, cert den (1988) 486 US 1022, 100 L Ed 2d 226, 108 S Ct 1994.

Shipping export declarations were material to function of United States Customs Service in prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001, since Customs Service routinely utilizes information contained in them to carry out its functions of monitoring types, amounts, and destination of goods exported from United States. United States v Gafyczk (1988, CA11 Fla) 847 F2d 685.

Evidence was sufficient to sustain false-statement convictions under 18 USCS § 1001 regarding shipper export declarations because there was evidence that defendant either signed declarations himself or had freight forwarder sign them on his behalf, using false values provided by defendant, and misstatements were material in that they impaired government's ability to identify shipments that might have been in violation of export regulations. United States v Ihsan Elashyi (2008, CA5 Tex) 554 F3d 480.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Court of appeals reversed defendant's convictions for willfully failing to file report declaring that he was carrying more than $ 10,000 when he attempted to enter Mexico, in violation of 31 USCS § 5316, smuggling more than $ 10,000 into Mexico, in violation of 31 USCS § 5332, and knowingly and willfully making false statement to government agent, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, because there was no evidence defendant knew he had to combine amounts he and his wife were carrying at time he was asked to make binding declaration at border, that he attempted to smuggle more than $ 10,000 into Mexico, or that his statement that he was carrying $ 7,000, although false, either influenced or was capable of influencing decisions customs agents made. United States v Beltran (2005, CA9 Ariz) 136 Fed Appx 59.

89. Government contracts and contractors

Manufacturer of plexiglass cockpit canopies concealed material fact in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by transferring approval stamps from approved canopies to canopies that were not approved by prime contractor and United States Navy. United States v Steiner Plastics Mfg. Co. (1956, CA2 NY) 231 F2d 149.

Executive director of redevelopment authority concealed material fact by falsely denying that he had private interest in two contracts between authority and architectural firm of which he was undisclosed partner since such conflict of interest violated federal agency regulations. United States v Kenny (1956, CA3 NJ) 236 F2d 128, cert den (1956) 352 US 894, 1 L Ed 2d 87, 77 S Ct 133.

Although concessionaire paid United States sum equal to 25 per cent of his gross receipts, as provided in contract, statements rendered to United States understating his net profits were material. Brethauer v United States (1964, CA8 Mo) 333 F2d 302.

House builder falsified material fact in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by signing form authorized by FHA stating that he had paid in full for all materials and labor owed on construction of house when in fact he owed bills totaling approximately $ 200 since FHA made unrestricted payment to house builder of balance due on contract on false assumption that all bills had been paid. United States v Trull (1978, CA5 Miss) 581 F2d 551.

Defendant's certification that grain warehouse's inventories as reflected in its records were actually on hand as required by contract between elevator association of which defendant was general manager and Commodity Credit Corporation, constituted material falsification under 18 USCS § 1001 despite fact that company had sufficient stock of grain on hand at various storage facilities. United States v Gilbertson (1978, CA8 Minn) 588 F2d 584.

It was material that housing contractor, who leased property to city housing authority which had annual contributions contract with U.S. HUD, presented false documents concerning restoration expenses in deposition, since false documents had capacity to influence amount of money which contractor received from U.S. HUD through housing authority, had their falseness not been discovered. United States v Lawson (1987, CA11 Fla) 809 F2d 1514, reh den, en banc (1987, CA11 Fla) 815 F2d 717.

90. Government employees

Fictitious receipts of expenses allegedly incurred by civilian employee of United States Air Force while transferring to new duty station constitute falsification of material facts under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v East (1969, CA9 Mont) 416 F2d 351.

False statements which employees of county water district made in county plant's monthly report to state water agency regarding drinking water turbidity levels were material to matter within jurisdiction of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since statements had capacity to affect Agency's administrative enforcement of drinking water regulations and influenced course of investigation which could yet result in agency enforcement action. United States v White (2001, CA6 Ky) 270 F3d 356, 53 Envt Rep Cas 1946, 32 ELR 20298.

False statement in letter written by United States Department of Agriculture employee under investigation by agency of Department of Agriculture to effect that employee did not own any part of particular warehouse is material to proper exercise of jurisdiction of Department and choice of personnel to administer and exercise such jurisdiction. United States v Cowart (1954, DC Dist Col) 118 F Supp 903.

91. Housing matters

House builder falsified material fact in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by signing form authorized by FHA stating that he had paid in full for all materials and labor owed on construction of house when in fact he owed bills totaling approximately $ 200 since FHA made unrestricted payment to house builder of balance due on contract on false assumption that all bills had been paid. United States v Trull (1978, CA5 Miss) 581 F2d 551.

Submission of false timesheets to Housing Authority of Dallas is material despite fact that Authority received grant from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund project which employed defendants before submission of false sheets; performance of program is hindered when funds are spent for work that is not done and quarterly reports required by Department of Housing and Urban Development show that federal agency has ultimate authority to see that funds are properly spent. United States v Baker (1980, CA5 Tex) 626 F2d 512 (criticized in United States v Blankenship (2004, CA11 Fla) 382 F3d 1110, 17 FLW Fed C 953).

It was material that housing contractor, who leased property to city housing authority which had annual contributions contract with U.S. HUD, presented false documents concerning restoration expenses in deposition, since false documents had capacity to influence amount of money which contractor received from U.S. HUD through housing authority, had their falseness not been discovered. United States v Lawson (1987, CA11 Fla) 809 F2d 1514, reh den, en banc (1987, CA11 Fla) 815 F2d 717.

Falsified signatures of purported beneficiaries of HUD community grant monies were material misstatements under 18 USCS § 1001, even though their production was not required by HUD, since § 1001 prohibits false statements generally; signatures were material even though they had no actual effect on HUD, since they were "capable" of affecting or influencing HUD's actions, and since statements were made in hope of influencing pending investigation. 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).

In prosecution of developer under 18 USCS § 1001 for conspiracy to defraud Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by submitting fictitious billings for work not performed, submission of documents used to cover up fraud was material, despite lack of reliance thereon by HUD, since documents served to make payments appear legitimate and therefore had capability of influencing HUD. United States v Campbell (1988, CA8 Mo) 848 F2d 846, 25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 742.

Defendants' convictions under 18 USCS §§ 1001, 2, and 371 were affirmed because under given instruction, jury was required to find that false statement could have actually resulted in change in position by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and there was sufficient evidence that fraudulent gift letters regarding source of down payment for home buyers were material to HUD because if source of downpayments were known Federal Housing Administration it would not have insured defaulted mortgages. United States v Peterson (2008, CA9 Cal) 538 F3d 1064.

Housing authority executive director is acquitted of one count of making false statement, even though he was properly found guilty of numerous other counts relating to bribery scheme, where he signed annually required Public Housing Management Assessment Program Certification stating that 100 percent of units inspected met housing quality standards when in fact they did not, because it was not realistic to expect there would not be some problem with some unit somewhere at any given time, director relied on staff and computer system that was malfunctioning at time, and ministerial signing of form did not constitute materially false statement as matter of law. United States v Evans (2001, MD Fla) 149 F Supp 2d 1331, 14 FLW Fed D 425.

92. Immigration, naturalization and citizenship

Defendant makes material false representation in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 where as witness in naturalization proceedings of his wife he conceals his true name and states falsely that he is United States citizen. Dear Wing Jung v United States (1962, CA9 Cal) 312 F2d 73.

Concealment of fact that certain aliens had contracted to marry American citizens solely to obtain immigrant visas is material under 18 USCS § 1001 since immigrant visas are available only to aliens whose marriages to Americans are bona fide. United States v Bernard (1967, CA2 NY) 384 F2d 915.

Letters containing fictitious offers of employment were "material" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001 where aliens submitted offer of employment from United States employer to consular authorities in order to receive immigrant visa and, therefore, letters were capable of influencing consular authorities in their statutory duty of not granting immigrant visas to anyone who is likely to become public charge. United States v Valdez (1979, CA9 Cal) 594 F2d 725.

Attorney's knowingly entering false priority dates on applications for permanent residency of clients was material within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, notwithstanding that statements could not trick Immigration and Naturalization Service into granting residency. United States v Lopez (1984, CA11 Fla) 728 F2d 1359, reh den (1984, CA11 Fla) 733 F2d 908 and cert den (1984) 469 US 828, 83 L Ed 2d 56, 105 S Ct 112 and (criticized in United States v Holland (1996, ND Ga) 919 F Supp 431) and (criticized in United States v McGuire (1996, CA5 Miss) 96-1 USTC P 50163).

Criminal indictment may not be based on false statements made to immigration officials regarding current viability of marriage of alien where current viability of marriage is immaterial to issue of whether marriage was pretextual at time of inception, which is sole issue upon which alien's status depends. United States v Qaisi (1985, CA6 Ky) 779 F2d 346.

Defendant's false statement to border patrol that all occupants of motor vehicle were U. S. citizens was material, since it had capacity to affect border patrol's decision to conduct inspection. United States v Rodriguez-Rodriguez (1988, CA9 Cal) 840 F2d 697.

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001, alien's concealment of actual purpose of marriage on immigration document in order to obtain permanent residency was material fact which bore upon validity of marriage, since intention of parties to marriage to limit their relationship is material under immigration law. United States v Zalman (1989, CA6 Ky) 870 F2d 1047, cert den (1989) 492 US 921, 106 L Ed 2d 594, 109 S Ct 3248.

Rational juror could have readily inferred that State Department, had it relied on defendant's statement that she had not heard from State Department in connection with her 1991 passport application, could have decided question of defendant's eligibility for passport without benefit of earlier correspondence (specifically her biographical information, which had resulted in State Department's determination that she had failed to establish eligibility); there was sufficient evidence that defendant's false statement was "capable of influencing" State Department's decision on her eligibility for passport in 2007, and thus sufficient evidence to support finding of materiality. United States v Jimenez (2010, CA5 Tex) 593 F3d 391.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's contention that government's prosecution of him was frivolous on ground that government knew that conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 for marriage fraud would be impossible because defendant did not present full extent of alleged fraud cover-up during his adjustment interview lacked merit because whether defendant took affirmative action to conceal material fact was question of fact for jury, and fact that legality of defendant's conduct presented jury question did not render his prosecution frivolous; thus, district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for attorney fees under 18 USCS § 3006A. United States v Hristov (2005, CA9 Nev) 121 Fed Appx 699.

93. Labor Department

Defendant falsified material fact in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by falsely stating in non-Communist affidavit that he was not member of Communist Party since filing of non-Communist affidavit is required by National Labor Relations Act to limit National Labor Relations Board benefits. Sells v United States (1958, CA10 Colo) 262 F2d 815, 43 BNA LRRM 2476, 36 CCH LC P 65189, cert den (1959) 360 US 913, 3 L Ed 2d 1262, 79 S Ct 1298.

False statements made to state employment division were material to Department of Labor within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, since statements had propensity to influence or affect federal public works and employment agencies which use information on state program claimants in planning work projects. United States v Facchini (1987, CA9 Or) 832 F2d 1159.

False statements which defendant caused union to file with Department of Labor were material within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, since they were capable of influencing agency action, even though misstated amounts were relatively small, since magnitude of falsehood is irrelevant, as is existence of misdemeanor statute, 29 USCS § 439, covering same conduct. Hughes v United States (1990, CA6 Ohio) 899 F2d 1495, 133 BNA LRRM 3086, 115 CCH LC P 10189, 91-1 USTC P 50022, 66 AFTR 2d 5716, reh den, en banc (1990, CA6) 1990 US App LEXIS 8935 and cert den (1990) 498 US 980, 112 L Ed 2d 520, 111 S Ct 508, reh den (1991) 498 US 1116, 112 L Ed 2d 1109, 111 S Ct 1027.

94. Loans

As matter of law, false representations on FHA mortgage application that applicant was manager of hotel and that he owned 1974 Mercedes-Benz were capable of influencing, or having natural tendency to influence, agency's decision and were therefore material under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Keefer (1986, CA6 Mich) 799 F2d 1115.

Statement of annual income appearing in application for housing loan with Farmers Home Administration was material, since it was capable of influencing officials empowered to approve or disprove loan, despite testimony that loan officers do not rely on that statement when determining loan eligibility. 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.

Principal shareholder of corporation does not commit material falsehood by submitting allegedly false financial statement to Reconstruction Finance Corporation where statement submitted does not misrepresent corporation's ability to repay government loan. Freidus v United States (1955, App DC) 96 US App DC 133, 223 F2d 598.

Court is not required to hold pretrial hearing on materiality of allegedly false statement concerning use of $ 132,000 Small Business Administration loan under 18 USCS § 1001, because (1) government's evidence makes it unlikely defendant will prevail on issue and (2) in event defendant does prevail on issue, count at issue will be dismissed and jury given limiting instruction. United States v Joyner (1987, ND Ill) 669 F Supp 226, affd (1989, CA7 Ill) 870 F2d 1304.

95.--Guarantees for loans

False statements regarding expenses associated with construction project are material where they had natural tendency to influence Small Business Administration to refrain from exercising its rights to reduce its exposure under its loan guarantee, to refrain from exercising its general power to investigate whether defendant had violated Small Business Administration Statute, and to influence Small Business Administration not to inspect project site. United States v Notarantonio (1985, CA1 RI) 758 F2d 777.

False statements given to Veterans Administration by defendant to obtain guaranteed loans are material and in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 since Veterans Administration is entitled to have true and exact information as to each qualification of applicant for guaranteed loans. United States v Jacobson (1964, ED Pa) 236 F Supp 577.

96. Tax matters

President of corporation violates 18 USCS § 1001 when he falsely states to IRS agents investigating company expenses that he was not aware of certain wells being drilled on his land. United States v McCue (1962, CA2 Conn) 301 F2d 452, 9 AFTR 2d 1041, cert den (1962) 370 US 939, 8 L Ed 2d 808, 82 S Ct 1586, reh den (1963) 374 US 858, 10 L Ed 2d 1083, 83 S Ct 1860.

Banker and controller of numbers operation misrepresented material fact on his wagering tax return by entering "none" as to number of persons accepting wagers on his behalf; such answer disguised his out-of-state source of income and allowed those persons who accepted wagers on his behalf to evade payment of taxes for which they were liable. United States v Zambito (1963, CA4 W Va) 315 F2d 266, cert den (1963) 373 US 924, 10 L Ed 2d 423, 83 S Ct 1524.

Defendant concealed material fact by representing to IRS agent that he had no bank account, business or personal, when he maintained such accounts under false names. United States v Ratner (1972, CA9 Cal) 464 F2d 101, 72-2 USTC P 9526, 30 AFTR 2d 5058.

Defendant who received bribes from racetrack owners made material false statement by telling IRS agents that "Chicago company" listed in his tax return was financial institution when it was in fact harness racing company whose stock he had received as bribe. United States v Isaacs (1974, CA7 Ill) 493 F2d 1124, cert den (1974) 417 US 976, 41 L Ed 2d 1146, 94 S Ct 3183, 94 S Ct 3184, reh den (1974) 418 US 955, 41 L Ed 2d 1178, 94 S Ct 3234.

In indictment for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 and 26 USCS § 7206 by tendering fictitious documents to IRS investigator to preserve defendant's claimed tax deductions, fact that government had begun its own investigation did not render statements made by defendant immaterial. United States v Schmoker (1977, CA9 Nev) 564 F2d 289, 78-1 USTC P 9109, 41 AFTR 2d 399.

Statement falsely stating that taxpayer had found deduction that he had not claimed and that he would like to submit it which leads IRS employee to add it to worksheet as item opened by Service is clearly material false statement which perverted agency's function, and fact that it did not actually influence Government is immaterial. United States v Fern (1983, CA11 Fla) 696 F2d 1269, 83-1 USTC P 9151, 51 AFTR 2d 819.

False statements to IRS concerning ownership of real property and tax liability therefor support conviction under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Morris (1984, CA8 SD) 741 F2d 188.

Bank customer was liable for conspiracy to violate 18 USCS § 1001 for concealment of material fact, where defendant structured transaction to conceal material fact that it involved more than $ 10,000 in order to cause bank to fail to file Currency Transaction Report, despite fact that customer was under no duty to file Currency Transaction Report with government, Currency Transaction Report since bank would have violated § 1001 had it intentionally structured transaction in this manner. United States v Nersesian (1987, CA2 NY) 824 F2d 1294, 23 Fed Rules Evid Serv 487, cert den (1987) 484 US 957, 98 L Ed 2d 380, 108 S Ct 355 and cert den (1987) 484 US 958, 98 L Ed 2d 382, 108 S Ct 357 and cert den (1988) 484 US 1061, 98 L Ed 2d 983, 108 S Ct 1018.

False statements which former farm owner made on 1099 tax forms, claiming that he had paid non-employee compensation to bank officers at bank which had foreclosed upon his property were material, since they had natural tendency to influence or were capable of influencing IRS action, and they influenced possibility that IRS investigation would ensue. United States v Meuli (1993, CA10 Kan) 8 F3d 1481, cert den (1994) 511 US 1020, 128 L Ed 2d 76, 114 S Ct 1403.

Defendant's submission of IRS Form 1099-S with false identification number was material, even though defendant may not have been required to provide it as a non-citizen, since purpose of form is to furnish information to IRS regarding money received by seller of property to verify tax liability. United States v Hutchison (1993, CA9 Cal) 22 F3d 846, 93 CDOS 292, 93 Daily Journal DAR 611, 37 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1068 (criticized in United States v Nash (1997, CA9 Cal) 115 F3d 1431, 97 CDOS 4952, 97 Daily Journal DAR 8049).

Defendants' motion to dismiss indictment on ground that they were not provided fair notice that their conduct was illegal, in violation of their rights to due process of law under Fifth Amendment, was denied where defendants' contention that they were not given clear notice that their activities were material to 26 USCS § 501(c)(3) determination, and that they were thus unaware that they had to disclose those activities to IRS was without merit because I.R.S. Form 1023 clearly instructed applicant to provide detailed narrative description of all activities of organization, past, present and planned; more fundamentally, whether defendants knew information was material was irrelevant because in determining whether defendant knowingly and willfully made false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 and 26 USCS § 7206(1), issue was defendants' knowledge of falsity of statements, not their knowledge of statement's materiality to federal agency involved. United States v Mubayyid (2007, DC Mass) 476 F Supp 2d 46, 99 AFTR 2d 1362.