Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Where alien was ordered removed from United States on basis of his conviction for credit card theft in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-128c, alien's waiver of his right to seek nunc pro tunc reduction of his one-year prison sentence so that underlying conviction would not qualify as aggravated felony conviction within meaning of 8 USCS § 1101(a)(43)(G) was voluntary because: (1) alien's attorney had informed court that it was not in alien's best interest to seek nunc pro tunc reduction; (2) indictment charging attorney with violations of 18 USCS §§ 2, 1001, and 1546 presented waivable conflict; (3) alien understood significance of indictment and potential conflict; and (4) alien consented to attorney's continued representation. Wilks v Gonzales (2007, CA2) 2007 US App LEXIS 4703.

Unpublished: Federal district court did not impermissibly broaden count against defendant that alleged false, fraudulent, and fictitious material statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by instructing jury that it could find defendant guilty if it found that she made material false statement or concealed or covered up material fact by trick, scheme, or device; district court's instruction on specific charge pertaining to defendant was taken largely from indictment and did not amend it; moreover, district court made clear in its instructions that defendant was accused of specific false statements, which jury could then judge if she made. United States v Dwyer (2007, CA1 Mass) 2007 US App LEXIS 20259.

Unpublished: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) were affirmed because he waived his ability to claim indictment was defective since he did not raise issue in pre-trial motion and he could not show indictment failed to invoke court's jurisdiction or to state offense; he also failed to show good cause for relief from waiver because he had all information necessary to challenge indictment before trial began but failed to do so. United States v Milo (2008, CA11 Fla) 2008 US App LEXIS 5054.

2.Sufficiency and Particular Allegations 117. Language of statute

Indictment was sufficient although it did not use words in matter within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States, but stated facts which showed that concealing and covering up occurred in such matter. Chevillard v United States (1946, CA9 Cal) 155 F2d 929.

Indictment which uses statutory language charging concealment by "trick, scheme, or device" is sufficient to inform defendants of charges against them and states offense under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v London (1977, CA5 Ga) 550 F2d 206.

Where each count of indictment specified what was false about cited document or documents submitted to state department, inasmuch as each count alleged that false statement was submitted in matter within jurisdiction of specified federal agency, that is, state department, it was unnecessary for indictment further to allege that false statements were "material and capable of influencing" state department; and even though word "facilitate" does not appear in text of §§ 1001 or 1002, use in indictment of that verb in conjunction with, and not as alternate to, other verbs directly quoted from statute was mere harmless surplusage. United States v Rodriguez (1977, CA2 NY) 556 F2d 638, cert den (1978) 434 US 1062, 55 L Ed 2d 762, 98 S Ct 1233.

Indictment written in language of predecessor of 18 USCS § 1001 was not necessarily sufficient; where statute defines crime in broad and general language which merely describes general nature of offense charged, indictment should describe with greater particularity offense charged. United States v Devine's Milk Laboratories, Inc. (1960, DC Mass) 179 F Supp 799.

118. Substantive offenses

Indictment charging defendant with falsifying his dispensation record of morphine dispensed by him between named dates was insufficient for not setting out showing as to time and place and person of each separate dispensation, since all government was required to do was to prove dispensation record false. Mitchell v United States (1944, CA10 Okla) 143 F2d 953.

Indictment for willful and false concealment of wage and hour records during course of investigation by wage and hour division of United States department of wages must allege that defendants were engaged in interstate commerce within coverage of Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.). United States v Moore (1950, CA5 Fla) 185 F2d 92, 19 CCH LC P 66031.

Indictment for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by making false statement in connection with bringing foreign currency through United States Customs was not defective for failure to expressly mention regulation defining monetary instruments to include Canadian currency or citation of wrong customs forms used. 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.

Indictment against defendant, official of labor union, for making false affidavit that he was not member of Communist Party, and not affiliated with Communist Party, was not uncertain and vague on ground that indictment failed to allege that defendant was member of or affiliated with Communist Party. United States v Valenti (1952, DC NJ) 106 F Supp 121, 30 BNA LRRM 2709, 22 CCH LC P 67174, revd on other grounds (1953, CA3 NJ) 207 F2d 242, 32 BNA LRRM 2655, 24 CCH LC P 67827.

119. Falsity of statement

In prosecution for submission of allegedly false Medicare claims in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, indictment which identified each of documents relied on, dates and patients involved, period covered, and which specified types of falsifications charged adequately laid out grand jury's charges and general factual circumstances underlying them so as not to violate guarantee of Fifth Amendment, despite use of general terms and alleged failure to state particulars in connection with misstatements. 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).

Indictment is sufficient to allege violation of 18 USCS § 1001 where it specifically states that appellant caused to be used false time sheet containing false statement of hours worked. United States v Mouton (1981, CA5 Tex) 657 F2d 736.

Indictment failed to allege false statement, where contractor's certification that he had made payments to subcontractors and suppliers from previous payments he had received under contract was not inconsistent with his having yet to pay subcontractors in full. United States v Gatewood (1999, CA6 Tenn) 173 F3d 983, 1999 FED App 126P, reh den (1999, CA6 Tenn) 1999 US App LEXIS 10900.

For purposes of prosecution for making false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, evidence was sufficient to allow jury to find that defendant's statements to investigators were false rather than literally true but misleading, with respect to his knowledge of shadow hiring system; as result, district court did not err by rejecting jury instruction with respect to defendant's answering of question in way that was literally true but unresponsive. United States v Sorich (2008, CA7 Ill) 523 F3d 702.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001, allegation in indictment is sufficient where it alleges that particular defendant caused to be made false written statement as to material facts in matter within jurisdiction of agency of United States even though it does not specify federal agency involved but refers simply to federal funds. United States v Brown (1981, WD Wis) 521 F Supp 511.

Labor leader is entitled to have stricken from indictment several specifications of allegedly false statements, even if certain hypothetical situations presented in government questioning can be shown to have occurred and to have produced different response from leader, because when subject describes what he "would have done" rather than what he actually did he is not bound by reality but rather is free to describe course of action which would have been appropriate under circumstances. United States v Carey (2001, SD NY) 152 F Supp 2d 415.

Rational juror could have found that defendant made false statement to FBI based on agent's testimony that defendant admitted to accidentally calling fax machine and defendant's contradictory statement at trial that he never admitted to calling fax machine. United States v Reich (2006, ED NY) 420 F Supp 2d 75.

In denying federal employee's motion to dismiss counts of indictment for making false statements, court found it impossible, with number of facts and incidents that took place over time period alleged, to reduce question of falsity to single statement with single answer, as employee urged court to do, and indictment did not do so. Thus, court declined to dismiss indictment for failure to allege falsity necessary to prove charge. United States v Safavian (2006, DC Dist Col) 429 F Supp 2d 156.

Even though specification alleges uttering of writing falsely made, no offense is set out under 18 USCS § 1001 or under Article 107 of Uniform Code of Military Justice where specification fails to allege falsity of contents. United States v Hutchins (1955) 5 USCMA 422, 18 CMR 46; United States v Sher (1956, US) 21 CMR 371.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant was entitled to reversal of her conviction for making false statement to federal officer under 18 USCS § 1001 because indictment completely failed to identify what alleged false statement was. United States v Cuevas (2008, CA9 Cal) 2008 US App LEXIS 15337.

120. Intent, knowledge and willfulness

Indictment charging defendant, an osteopath, with violation of 18 USCS § 1001 for submitting false Medicare claims, was fatally defective since it did not specifically allege that defendant committed the offense "willfully"; allegations in the indictment of "fraudulent statement," "as he then knew he had not performed such services," and "knowingly," were not allegations of similar import to allegation of "willfulness" and they import no more than that defendant acted "with knowledge," a separate and distinct element of a § 1001 offense. United States v Mekjian (1975, CA5 Fla) 505 F2d 1320.

Indictment which alleges in Count 1 that 31 USCS § 1121 violation was in furtherance of violation of both 18 USCS §§ 371 and 1001 is valid where indictment clearly alleges intentional concealment of information that should have been reported to Customs Service. United States v Hajecate (1982, CA5 Tex) 683 F2d 894, 83-1 USTC P 9192, 51 AFTR 2d 1282, cert den (1983) 461 US 927, 77 L Ed 2d 298, 103 S Ct 2086.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS §§ 371 and 1001 agents' intent to benefit corporation is not essential element of crime which must be specifically alleged. United States v Cincotta (1982, CA1 Mass) 689 F2d 238, 11 Fed Rules Evid Serv 423, cert den (1982) 459 US 991, 74 L Ed 2d 387, 103 S Ct 347.

In reviewing convictions under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act, appellate court, in rejecting Government's Pinkerton theory of liability, determined that rational juror could not have concluded that two of defendants could have reasonably foreseen when they entered into their false-statement conspiracy in 1994 that co-conspirator, as natural or necessary consequence of their agreement, would make false statement to FBI agent in course of federal grand jury investigation that was convened six years later. United States v Bruno (2004, CA2 NY) 383 F3d 65.

Indictment was sufficient if it alleged presentation of affidavit with signature known to be false and forged. United States v Adler (1892, DC Iowa) 49 F 733.

Indictment charging defendant violated 18 USCS § 1001 when he stated to assistant United States Attorney that certain person had stolen checks from him and that by means of forgery such person had cashed same and that at time he made this statement defendant knew statement was untrue and that this was false statement of material fact in matter within jurisdiction of department of United States, was good. United States v Van Valkenburg (1958, DC Alaska) 17 Alaska 450, 157 F Supp 599.

Indictment for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 which alleged that defendant "did knowingly and willfully transport monetary instruments" from United States onto airplane bound for Brazil "without filing a report" sufficiently alleged willful failure to file report. United States v Pereira (1978, ED NY) 463 F Supp 481.

Indictment properly alleged violation in prosecution of bookmakers' scheme to launder money where larger sum was divided into smaller transactions of less than $ 10,000 each to avoid triggering federal currency transaction reporting requirements under 31 USCS § 5313 because intentional concealment of true size of transaction resulted in concealment of material facts required to be reported to government. United States v Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. (1986, ED Pa) 650 F Supp 490, motion den sub nom United States v Cantley (1987, ED Pa) 1987 US Dist LEXIS 6247.

Indictment charging secretary of Puerto Rican municipality with violation of 18 USCS § 1001 is approved, where attempt to minimize her role in transmitting information as "ministerial" is undermined by fact that she was secretary of municipality during time when federal emergency funds were received and that she was personally responsible for preparing minutes attesting to bidding process which she knew had not taken place, because facts as alleged support charge that she willfully presented documents to special investigator to validate disbursement of funds previously made, knowing that these documents contained false information pertaining to nonexistent bids. United States v Reyes Mercado (1994, DC Puerto Rico) 871 F Supp 103.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) because his false statement to officer, staff member of Bureau of Prisons, contained his acknowledgement that he was informed that it was violation of federal law to provide false information to federal agents, and defendant indicated that he acted purposefully in making statement. United States v Thomas (2006, CA5 Tex) 2006 US App LEXIS 739.

Unpublished: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud U.S. and making false statements under 18 USCS §§ 371, 2, and 1001 because evidence showed that defendant knew that his conduct was illegal and he embarked on fraudulent scheme to use government grant for personal use and submitted fraudulent invoices for work not performed. United States v Blockett (2009, CA5 Miss) 2009 US App LEXIS 9928.

121. Jurisdiction of federal entity

Indictment which stated that defendant submitted false statements to Securities and Exchange Commission and that defendant operated business which sold commodity options to public and caused his business to buy and sell commodity futures by use of various commodity brokerage firms sufficiently alleged nexus between subject matter of SEC investigation which led to defendant's submission of false documents and agency's regulatory authority to satisfy jurisdiction requirement of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Di Fonzo (1979, CA7 Ill) 603 F2d 1260, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 96957, cert den (1980) 444 US 1018, 62 L Ed 2d 648, 100 S Ct 672.

Indictment alleging that defendant kept certain records for inspection of the Office of Price Administration, agency of United States, showed that such records were made in matter within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States. United States v Ganz (1942, DC Mass) 48 F Supp 323.

Motion to quash indictment based on 18 USCS § 1001 charging defendant with making false statements to, and receiving funds from, a state nonprofit corporation which was incorporated for purposes of designing, developing and implementing programs to alleviate severe economic hardships of Mexican Americans and their hardcore unemployed, was denied, since defendant's violation, set forth in indictment, was matter within "jurisdiction" of an agency of the United States as required by the statute because nonprofit corporation was a subcontractor to national organization which was a contractor to the Department of Labor which regulated use of government funds distributed through the national organization to nonprofit corporation. United States v Munoz (1974, ED Mich) 392 F Supp 183, affd without op (1975, CA6 Mich) 529 F2d 526.

Allegation concerning the making of false statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 is insufficient unless it contains essential element of averment that false statement was made in matter within jurisdiction of agency or department of United States. United States v Davis (1968) 39 CMR 632.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: District court properly dismissed indictment under 18 USCS § 1001 against defendant who was charged with making materially false statements in connection with allegedly false time card entries submitted to her employer, prime contractor of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Government failed to establish element of "agency jurisdiction" because DOE did not have power to act with regard to defendant's allegedly false time card entries; rather, evidence demonstrated that defendant's alleged falsification of her time cards was peripheral to DOE's obligations and not directly related to any DOE-authorized function. United States v Holstrom (2007, CA9 Wash) 2007 US App LEXIS 12329.

122. Materiality

Indictment, charging that accused "unlawfully, knowingly and willfully made false, fictitious and fraudulent statement" in matter within jurisdiction of treasury department, was not legally insufficient for failure to allege that false statement related to material fact. United States v Silver (1956, CA2 NY) 235 F2d 375, cert den (1956) 352 US 880, 1 L Ed 2d 80, 77 S Ct 102.

Although materiality is essential element of offense defined in 18 USCS § 1001, indictment charging that manager of electric cooperative made false statements to rural electrification administration, but not charging that statements were material, was not insufficient where its fact allegations showed that they were material. Gonzales v United States (1960, CA10 NM) 286 F2d 118, cert den (1961) 365 US 878, 6 L Ed 2d 190, 81 S Ct 1028 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Daily (1990, CA10 Kan) 921 F2d 994).

Inasmuch as each count in indictment alleged that false statement was submitted in matter within jurisdiction of specified federal agency, it was unnecessary for indictment further to allege that false statements were "material and capable of influencing" that agency. United States v Rodriguez (1977, CA2 NY) 556 F2d 638, cert den (1978) 434 US 1062, 55 L Ed 2d 762, 98 S Ct 1233.

Indictment for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 need not allege in what way alleged false statements were material, since it need state only essential facts constituting offense charged and materiality of false statements were self-apparent. United States v Kirby (1978, CA7 Ind) 587 F2d 876.

Government demonstrated sufficient basis of materiality in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 where it alleged that defendants failed to disclose kickback transaction in prospectus and in proxy statements. United States v Fields (1978, CA2 NY) 592 F2d 638, cert den (1979) 442 US 917, 61 L Ed 2d 284, 99 S Ct 2838.

Indictment for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 need not use word materiality where it alleges sufficient facts to establish that element. United States v Adler (1980, CA8 Mo) 623 F2d 1287.

It is incumbent upon Government to prove that defendant had duty to disclose material facts at time he was alleged to have concealed them. United States v Irwin (1981, CA10) 654 F2d 671, cert den (1982) 455 US 1016, 72 L Ed 2d 133, 102 S Ct 1709 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Daily (1990, CA10 Kan) 921 F2d 994) and (ovrld on other grounds as stated in United States v Allemand (1994, CA10 Wyo) 34 F3d 923).

Indictment raised inference of materiality, where it alleged that defendant had ownership interest in business, since his false statement to contrary could significantly have affected IRS's efforts to monitor and verify his tax liability, given fact that most people are taxable entities and ownership interests in property invariably affect taxes. United States v Ladum (1998, CA9 Or) 141 F3d 1328, 98 CDOS 2851, 98 Daily Journal DAR 3937, 98-1 USTC P 50345, 81 AFTR 2d 1576, cert den (1998) 525 US 898, 142 L Ed 2d 185, 119 S Ct 225 and cert den (1998) 525 US 1021, 142 L Ed 2d 457, 119 S Ct 549.

Indictment in exact language of statute was sufficient, although it failed to allege that false facts were material or to state to whom false writing was submitted. United States v Varano (1953, DC Pa) 113 F Supp 867.

Allegations that, during investigation as to whether defendant held financial interest in warehouse and was rendering or about to render services for it, he falsely denied any ownership, but then owned capital stock of corporation and later received proceeds of sale of such stock, showed false statements were material to proper exercise of jurisdiction of department and the choice of personnel to administer and exercise such jurisdiction. United States v Cowart (1954, DC Dist Col) 118 F Supp 903.

Materiality of alleged false statement need not be pleaded where offense charged is violation of the second or third clauses of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Lange (1955, DC NY) 128 F Supp 797.

Indictment, charging defendant with causing to be made and causing to be used false writings or documents in circumstances constituting such acts crimes, was sufficient although it did not aver that falsity of writings was in relation to material fact or facts, since that portion of 18 USCS § 1001 under which indictment lay contains no requirement that falsity or misrepresentation be of material fact. United States v Okin (1955, DC NJ) 154 F Supp 553.

It is not necessary that indictment allege in haec verba that false statement was material; it is sufficient if materiality can be inferred from facts. United States v Allen (1961, SD Cal) 193 F Supp 954.

Information charging false negative answer by applicant for temporary employment with post office department as to arrests for violation of federal and state laws, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, was good, as against contention that information failed to set forth facts showing that false statement was material. United States v Blake (1962, WD Mo) 206 F Supp 706, affd (1963, CA8 Mo) 323 F2d 245.

Indictment under 18 USCS § 1001 is sufficient if facts alleged show materiality of allegedly false statement. United States v Olin Corp. (1979, WD NY) 465 F Supp 1120.

Indictment properly alleged violation in prosecution of bookmakers' scheme to launder money where larger sum was divided into smaller transactions of less than $ 10,000 each to avoid triggering federal currency transaction reporting requirements under 31 USCS § 5313 because intentional concealment of true size of transaction resulted in concealment of material facts required to be reported to government. United States v Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. (1986, ED Pa) 650 F Supp 490, motion den sub nom United States v Cantley (1987, ED Pa) 1987 US Dist LEXIS 6247.

In denying federal employee's motion to dismiss counts of indictment for making false statements, court rejected employee's argument that his misrepresentation or concealment, if any, were not shown by indictment to have had natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, decision of decision making body because bases for argument were documents and evidence outside of indictment which employee asked court to accept at face value (with his particular interpretation of them) without waiting to hear testimony of witnesses at trial and consider evidence presented. Furthermore, issue of whether or not decision was material was one for jury. United States v Safavian (2006, DC Dist Col) 429 F Supp 2d 156.

Allegations that defendant's alleged false statements under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) were not material did not require dismissal of his indictment because materiality of false statements was question for jury to resolve at trial and did not concern adequacy of indictment. United States v Adams (2007, WD Va) 472 F Supp 2d 811.