Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

143. Materiality

In order to gain conviction under 18 USCS § 1001, government must prove that false statement was "material" as that term has been defined in case law. Paritem Singh Poonian v United States (1961, CA9 Cal) 294 F2d 74, 61-2 USTC P 9647, 8 AFTR 2d 5400.

Rule that materiality must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 does not apply retroactively on collateral review. United States v Mandanici (2000, CA2 Conn) 205 F3d 519, cert den (2000) 531 US 879, 148 L Ed 2d 132, 121 S Ct 190 and cert den (2002) 536 US 961, 153 L Ed 2d 840, 122 S Ct 2666.

144. Miscellaneous

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001, charging submission of false signature, prosecution is not required to prove lack of authorization as part of its prima facie case. United States v West (1981, CA2 Vt) 666 F2d 16, 7 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1506.

District court was merely of view that defendant's "no's" were not perjurious, not that simple denial of guilt without more was not perjurious as matter of law; district court found that government did not prove by preponderance of evidence that defendant was lying. United States v Aguilar-Portillo (2003, CA8 Iowa) 334 F3d 744.

In prosecution for making false affidavit in support of false claim against United States, it was necessary to prove making, by defendant, of false statements in affidavit in question and knowledge of their falsity, and with intent to aid collection of such false claim. United States v Long (1936, DC Mass) 14 F Supp 29.

In prosecution of defendant for making false statement that he was not Communist in order to continue employment under Federal Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1941, defendant's contention that definitions of term "Communist" were so many and so wide that term was indefinite did not bar prosecution, but proof of meaning of term was burden that must be assumed by government in proving its case. United States v Schneider (1942, DC Wis) 45 F Supp 848.

In prosecution for conspiracy to defraud United States by willfully concealing material facts and by making false or fraudulent statement and for substantive offense, wrongful purpose on part of defendants was essential element which prosecution must have proved in each offense charged. United States v Buckley (1943, DC Dist Col) 49 F Supp 993.

Burden in establishing defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution is heavy one and once defendant satisfies this burden of proof, burden shifts to government, which must justify its actions in singling out particular person or persons for prosecution. United States v Carron (1982, WD NY) 541 F Supp 347.

3.Admissibility or Exclusion of Evidence 145. Confessions and admissions

Defendant's confession concerning preparation of false letters to be presented to agencies of United States was admissible in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Williams (1980, CA5 La) 616 F2d 759, 5 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1328, cert den (1980) 449 US 857, 66 L Ed 2d 72, 101 S Ct 156.

Statements made by defendant during interview with probation officer were admissible in prosecution for making false statements, where interview, which was conducted before defendant appeared before magistrate and pled guilty, was not custodial interrogation. United States v Gonzalez-Mares (1985, CA9 Cal) 752 F2d 1485, cert den (1985) 473 US 913, 87 L Ed 2d 663, 105 S Ct 3540.

Defendant was entitled to new suppression hearing following his conviction for conspiracy to make false statement in passport application, 18 USCS § 371, making false statement in passport application, 18 USCS § 1542, and making false statement within jurisdiction of U.S., 18 USCS § 1001; U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Seibert required district court to consider whether law enforcement agents deliberately used two-step interrogation procedure to circumvent Miranda, and if so, whether midstream Miranda warning effectively apprised defendant of his U.S. Const. amend. V rights. United States v Williams (2006, CA9 Cal) 435 F3d 1148.

146. Materiality

Testimony of government witnesses concerning HUD policy against making loans to persons who have not paid for fees and charges incident to purchase of property out of their own funds was admissible, not as statement of law regarding HUD and VA loans, but as relevant to materiality of false statements. United States v Kingston (1992, CA10 Okla) 971 F2d 481, 36 Fed Rules Evid Serv 545.

Testimony of customs agent that answers given by travelers on currency transaction and reporting forms permit government to track people who enter or leave United States with more than $ 10,000 was admissible to establish materiality, as required by 18 USCS § 1001, of defendant's false answer to currency statement on customs declaration form. United States v Wales (1992, CA9 Hawaii) 977 F2d 1323, 92 CDOS 8620, 92 Daily Journal DAR 14271, 36 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1408.

147. Prior or other acts

At sentencing hearing in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 evidence concerning post-indictment obstruction of justice is admissible because sentencing judge is entitled to know that defendant has attempted to distort very proceeding at which sentence is determined. United States v Pineda (1982, CA2 NY) 692 F2d 284.

Defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud government through false Medicare claims is not prejudiced by government's proof at trial of acts not charged in indictment where defendant is not convicted of offenses other than actually charged. United States v Gold (1984, CA11 Fla) 743 F2d 800, 17 Fed Rules Evid Serv 669, cert den (1985) 469 US 1217, 84 L Ed 2d 341, 105 S Ct 1196.

In action brought by Securities and Exchange Commission, district court did not have discretion under Rule 690(a)(2) to exclude from evidence defendants' convictions for lying to Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of 18 USCS § 1001. SEC v Sargent (2000, CA1 Mass) 229 F3d 68, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 91244, 55 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1103, subsequent app (2003, CA1 Mass) 329 F3d 34.

Where defendants were charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and false statements in connection with front-running scheme whereby day traders were granted access to brokers' squawk boxes in exchange for execution of wash trades, evidence showing that broker defendant sold squawk box access to traders not named in indictment was admissible as direct evidence of guilt as to charge of making false statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001; evidence tended to show that broker defendant lied when he told federal agents that he never intentionally used telephone lines to allow traders to listen to his firm's squawk boxes; evidence was also admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence of intent and of absence of mistake as to other charges against broker defendant. United States v Mahaffy (2007, ED NY) 477 F Supp 2d 560.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant was properly found guilty of wire fraud, violation of 18 USCS § 1343, and making false statements regarding government contracts for military parts, violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a), because his concealment of quality deficiency reports was misrepresentation for 18 USCS § 1343 purposes, and fact that U.S. Air Force failed to investigate was not material to his guilt; moreover, other acts evidence was not improperly admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), particularly where appropriate limiting instruction was given; there was no error in admitting testimony demonstrating that defendant had working knowledge of certification process for aircraft parts, need to produce complying parts, and that there were ways to deceive government by using nonconforming material. United States v Se Keun Oh (2006, CA6 Ohio) 2006 US App LEXIS 25873.

Unpublished: Defendant was properly found guilty of wire fraud, violation of 18 USCS § 1343, and making false statements regarding government contracts for military parts, violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a), because his concealment of quality deficiency reports was misrepresentation for 18 USCS § 1343 purposes, and fact that U.S. Air Force failed to investigate was not material to his guilt. Moreover, other acts evidence was not improperly admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), particularly where appropriate limiting instruction was given; there was no error in admitting testimony demonstrating that defendant had working knowledge of certification process for aircraft parts, need to produce complying parts, and that there were ways to deceive government by using nonconforming material. United States v Se Keun Oh (2006, CA6 Ohio) 2006 US App LEXIS 25873.

148. Relevant evidence

In prosecution for making and using false affidavit, knowing it to contain fraudulent and fictitious statements in matter within jurisdiction of United States civil service commission, questions asked defendant when he was seeking certification for federal position as to whether he had ever been arrested or summoned into court as defendant and to furnish record of every employment both public and private which he had had since he first began to work were not irrelevant, since they bore on his social conduct and on his qualifications. United States v De Lorenzo (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 122.

In prosecution for knowingly submitting false statement to agency of United States, trial judge properly admitted evidence that agency had paid for house and car for personal use as well as credit card bills for defendant since evidence was relevant because defendants' measure of defense was lack of motive to defraud; evidence established that individual defendant benefited personally from over-billings and therefore had motive. United States v Jones (1979, CA5 Tex) 587 F2d 802, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 172.

Testimony of government witnesses concerning HUD policy against making loans to persons who have not paid for fees and charges incident to purchase of property out of their own funds was admissible, not as statement of law regarding HUD and VA loans, but as relevant to materiality of false statements. United States v Kingston (1992, CA10 Okla) 971 F2d 481, 36 Fed Rules Evid Serv 545.

149. State of mind

Since state of mind is difficult to prove precisely, evidence of surrounding circumstances may be admitted to prove intent; evidence was properly admitted as to defendant's attempt to induce individual to do that which defendant later succeeded in inducing second individual to do. McCoy v United States (1948, CA9 Mont) 169 F2d 776, cert den (1948) 335 US 898, 93 L Ed 433, 69 S Ct 298.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001, stipulation of settlement, executed less than 2 months after events which give rise to indictment, is admissible as non-hearsay evidence to show appellant's state of mind, i.e., that he believed that he had authority to sign name on document. United States v West (1981, CA2 Vt) 666 F2d 16, 7 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1506.

150.--Intent, knowledge and willfulness

In prosecution for making false statement in baggage declaration evidence that defendant was using trunk with false compartment was admissible as showing general intent of defendant to deceive government. United States v Zavala (1944, CA2 NY) 139 F2d 830.

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 for making false statements of assets during internal revenue service investigation, when defendant claimed that false statements were not intentionally made, affidavit, made by defendant seeking draft deferment and reciting absence of assets to care for wife and expected child, was admissible, even if it might have tendency to impute draft-dodging on defendant's part, in proof of intent. United States v Brott (1959, CA2 NY) 264 F2d 433, 59-1 USTC P 9276, 3 AFTR 2d 805, cert den (1959) 359 US 985, 3 L Ed 2d 933, 79 S Ct 941.

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 where appellant argued court erred in allowing admission of tax returns for period prior to period referred to in indictment, fraudulent tax returns were admissible to show motive and criminal intent. United States v Egenberg (1971, CA2 NY) 441 F2d 441, 71-1 USTC P 9303, 27 AFTR 2d 1046, cert den (1971) 404 US 994, 30 L Ed 2d 546, 92 S Ct 530.

Evidence was demonstrated that defendant had several opportunities to inform government that he was no longer eligible for welfare payments was relevant to issue of his knowledge in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001; evidence showing amount that defendant was overpaid after his misstatements and omissions to government was relevant to issue of intent. United States v O'Brien (1979, CA9 Wash) 601 F2d 1067, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1015.

Proof that defendant has specific intent to deceive by making false or fraudulent statement is prerequisite to conviction under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Dothard (1982, CA11 Ala) 666 F2d 498, 9 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1159.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: During defendant's trial for violations of 8 USCS § 1325(c) and 18 USCS §§ 371 and 1001, woman he had married for purposes of evading immigration laws was properly permitted to testify pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 701 that defendant did not intend to live with her as man and wife; although defendant argued that woman's limited contact with him demonstrated her testimony was not rationally based on her perceptions of him, facts to which she testified conversely provided solid foundation for woman's opinion that defendant did not intend to live with her as man and wife, which was fact in issue. United States v Moniruzzaman (2006, CA10 Kan) 2006 US App LEXIS 29962.

151.--Motive

In prosecution for making false statements to Immigration and Naturalization Service in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, evidence bearing on motive for allegedly false statement that certain papers had been lost was properly admitted. United States v Mestchersky (1969, CA2 NY) 411 F2d 610.

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 where appellant argued court erred in allowing admission of tax returns for period prior to period referred to in indictment, fraudulent tax returns were admissible to show motive and criminal intent. United States v Egenberg (1971, CA2 NY) 441 F2d 441, 71-1 USTC P 9303, 27 AFTR 2d 1046, cert den (1971) 404 US 994, 30 L Ed 2d 546, 92 S Ct 530.

In prosecution for knowingly submitting false statement to agency of United States, trial judge properly admitted evidence that agency had paid for house and car for personal use as well as credit card bills for defendant since evidence was relevant because defendants' measure of defense was lack of motive to defraud; evidence established that individual defendant benefited personally from over-billings and therefore had motive. United States v Jones (1979, CA5 Tex) 587 F2d 802, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 172.

Copies of disability checks which defendant had failed to report on form required to maintain her eligibility for AFDC benefits were admissible as direct evidence of her crime, relevant to her motive for failure to report disability benefits, since checks were admitted for proper purpose, and probative value outweighed potential for prejudice. United States v Murphy (1991, CA7 Ill) 935 F2d 899, 33 Fed Rules Evid Serv 423.

152. Miscellaneous

In prosecution of union officer for violating 18 USCS § 1001 by filing with National Labor Relations Board affidavit falsely denying that he was affiliated with Communist Party, ultimate fact of affiliation, though subjective, may be proved by evidence of objective facts and circumstances having rational tendency to show ultimate fact of affiliation. Killian v United States (1961) 368 US 231, 7 L Ed 2d 256, 82 S Ct 302, 49 BNA LRRM 2189, 43 CCH LC P 17306, reh den (1962) 368 US 979, 7 L Ed 2d 441, 82 S Ct 476, 44 CCH LC P 17389.

Record of notary of contents of affidavit which it was alleged defendant caused another to execute was admissible, where such record was kept by notary in regular course of his business, since it was best evidence of contents of affidavit, defendant having according to his own testimony destroyed original document. Sanchez v United States (1943, CA1 Puerto Rico) 134 F2d 279, cert den (1943) 319 US 768, 87 L Ed 1717, 63 S Ct 1325.

Trial court committed reversible error in prosecution of defendant under 18 USCS § 1001 for violation of statute relating to filing of non-Communist affidavit by labor union official in excluding: (1) production of records of federal bureau of investigation to show considerable payments made by federal bureau of investigation to "informer" who was principal witness against defendant, and (2) cross-examination evidence that "informer" who was presented as expert in identification of Communists, that such informer had made mistaken cases of identity in past. Fisher v United States (1956, CA9 Wash) 231 F2d 99, 37 BNA LRRM 2599, 29 CCH LC P 69765.

Parol evidence rule has no application to prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 where government has proved by one of purported parties to assignment that side agreement between appellant and purported assignee prevented document from being assignment which it purported to be. United States v Satterfield (1969, CA5 Fla) 411 F2d 602, 69-2 USTC P 9638, 24 AFTR 2d 5087.

Trial court properly admitted series of computer printouts into evidence in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 1341 to prove that defendant, who operated beauty college approved for Veteran's Assistance benefits, had enrolled over 6 times as many veterans as students as she was authorized to do, where proper foundation was laid for introduction of printouts which were simply compilation of information taken from enrollment certification forms submitted by defendant and keypunched onto tape fed into computer. 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).

In prosecution for causing federally licensed grain inspector to falsify material fact, namely, inspection grade and weight on certificates, defendants' offer of proof of test conducted on sample grains of corn was properly rejected. United States v Kirby (1978, CA7 Ind) 587 F2d 876.

In prosecution for willfully and knowingly misrepresenting signatures on stipend rosters maintained by university as part of government funded program, evidence of defendant's voluntary repayment of money following audit of university was admissible. United States v Hooper (1979, CA7 Wis) 596 F2d 219, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1306.

Admission into evidence in prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 of certain government forms which had been filled out by government claims representative did not violate defendant's right to confrontation where claims representatives were subject to cross-examination and possibility that records were founded on faulty recollections was extremely remote. United States v King (1980, CA7 Ill) 613 F2d 670, 5 Fed Rules Evid Serv 720, 56 ALR Fed 159 (criticized in United States v LeMaster (1995, CA6 Ky) 54 F3d 1224, 42 Fed Rules Evid Serv 494, 1995 FED App 157P) and (criticized in United States v Wiener (1996, CA2 NY) 96 F3d 35).

Defendant did not commit reversible error in permitting grand jury testimony of defendant's attorney to be read to jury, where testimony revealed no significant additional evidence that jury would have considered in convicting defendant of conspiracy to defraud United States or aiding and abetting violation of 18 USCS § 1001, in connection with contractor's compliance with federal regulations concerning disadvantaged business enterprises. United States v Brothers Constr. Co. (2000, CA4 W Va) 219 F3d 300, 54 Fed Rules Evid Serv 644, cert den (2000) 531 US 1037, 148 L Ed 2d 537, 121 S Ct 628.

In reviewing convictions under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act, appellate court vacated convictions for false-statement conspiracy because district court committed plain error in admitting hearsay evidence--plea allocution and grand jury testimony--in violation of Confrontation Clause. United States v Bruno (2004, CA2 NY) 383 F3d 65.

Defendant was properly convicted of making false statement to government agency pursuant to 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) because introduction of content of phone conversations between he and prison inmate into evidence did not violate Federal Wiretap Act, 18 USCS §§ 2510 et seq., pursuant to 18 USCS § 2515 given that inmate consented to his calls being monitored pursuant to 18 USCS § 2511(c)(2); paperwork required to receive PIN to place calls required inmate's consent and placards placed near phones warned that calls were monitored, as did repeated messages; moreover, even if inmate's consent was limited to monitoring for purpose of assuring prison safety and order, correctional investigator allowed monitoring because he believed that inmate was involved in ongoing crime, and federal district court gave great deference to investigator's interpretation of prison policy; in addition, inmate as unaware of prison policy and, instead, believed that all calls save those between he and his attorney were subject to monitoring. United States v Conley (2008, CA1 Me) 531 F3d 56.

Defendant argued that he was entitled to new trial on Count One of superceding indictment, which alleged violation of 18 USCS § 1505, and Count Three, which alleged violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) because evidence regarding cost of charter flight was erroneously admitted, was crucial to both counts, and was extremely prejudicial; that argument failed because: (1) there was some evidence provided to jury in form of ethics training materials and testimony to support government's pro rata share theory; (2) in view of all of evidence that jury heard on cost and valuation from various witnesses--inconsistent though it may have been--defendant could not succeed in his argument that jury necessarily relied upon evidence concerning his pro rata share of $ 90,000 cost of charter flight in reaching its verdicts on Count One and Count Three, nor did government ask jury to do so; and (3) there was sufficient evidence for jury to disregard any and all evidence relating to value of airfare and still convict defendant on Count One and Count Three. United States v Safavian (2009, DC Dist Col) 644 F Supp 2d 1.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: District court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that Government witness may have been involved in bank robbery in order to challenge her credibility where defendant claimed, through conclusory and unsupported allegations, that under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), evidence of witness's involvement in prior robbery would somehow have negated her guilt. United States v Norris (2005, CA4 SC) 140 Fed Appx 443.

Unpublished: Although government improperly failed to disclose under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 that it intended to use half-brother's birth certificate in case in chief, other overwhelming evidence was shown that defendant wrongfully used half-brother's name for false passport and other identifications under 18 USCS §§ 1546, 1001, 911, and 1028A so that no substantial prejudice was shown. United States v Zamor (2007, CA11 Fla) 2007 US App LEXIS 12787.

Unpublished: There was no error in finding that new trial was warranted on false statement count against utility under 18 USCS § 1001 because of admission of confusing and prejudicial evidence, as well as inconsistent results in jury's deliberations. United States v San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (2009, CA9 Cal) 2009 US App LEXIS 5652.

Unpublished: In case in which defendant was convicted of violating 31 USCS § 5332 and 18 USCS § 1001, he unsuccessfully argued that district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without being informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda decision; reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt that his freedom of action was limited to degree associated with formal arrest; since he was not in custody at time he made statements, agents were not required to inform him of his Miranda rights. United States v Akinmukomi (2010, CA4 Va) 2010 US App LEXIS 5260.