Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service



Yüklə 322,02 Kb.
səhifə2/25
tarix09.08.2018
ölçüsü322,02 Kb.
#62160
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25

I.IN GENERAL 1. Generally 2. Constitutionality 3. Purpose 4. Nature of crime and moral turpitude 5. Civil actions and liability

II.RELATION TO OTHER LAWS 6. Generally 7. Title 10 8.--Uniform Code of Military Justice 9. Title 15 10. Title 16 11. Title 18 12.--Sections 1010 and 1012 13.--Section 1341 14. Title 19 15. Title 26 16.--Section 7207 17. Title 31 18.--Section 3729 19.--Section 5322 20. Title 42 21.--Section 408 22. Title 49 23. State laws 24. Miscellaneous

III.ELEMENTS OF OFFENSES

A.In General 25. Generally

B.Matters Within Jurisdiction of Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branch of Federal Government

1.In General 26. Generally 27. Jurisdiction 28. "Matter within the jurisdiction" 29. Submission or presentation to federal entity 30. Action by federal entity 31. Miscellaneous

2.Particular Departments, Agencies or Entities 32. Congress 33. Courts 34.--During judicial proceeding exception 35. Custom authorities 36. Environmental Protection Agency 37. Federal Bureau of Investigation 38. Grand jury 39. Health, education and welfare 40.--Medicare 41. Housing 42. Immigration, naturalization and citizenship 43. Internal Revenue Service 44. Labor Department 45.--National Labor Relations Board 46. Military authorities 47. Postal Service 48. Small Business Administration 49. State agencies 50. United States Attorney 51. Veteran's Administration 52. Wartime agencies 53. Miscellaneous

3.Particular Matters and Transactions 54. Answers to inquiries, questionnaires and forms 55.--Particular cases 56. Currency transaction reports 57. Negotiations with government 58. Reports of federal employees 59. Miscellaneous

C.State of Mind 60. Generally 61. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 62. Recklessness

D.False Statements, Writings or Documents and Concealments

1.In General 63. Generally 64. "False" 65.--Literally or facially true

2.Particular Cases 66. Applications 67. Checks 68. Exculpatory statements 69.--Custodial interrogation 70.--Customs matters 71.--Tax matters 72.--Miscellaneous 73. Investigations 74. Negative answers 75. Omissions or leaving blanks 76. Oral and/or unsworn statements 77.--Tax matters 78. Self-incrimination 79. Voluntary statements 80. Miscellaneous

E.Materiality

1.In General 81. Generally 82. Tendency to influence, or capacity to affect or influence, governmental function as test to determine materiality 83. Damage, injury or loss to government 84. Reliance

2.Particular Cases 85. Assistance and grant programs 86. Criminal record concealment 87. Customs matters 88.--Export declarations 89. Government contracts and contractors 90. Government employees 91. Housing matters 92. Immigration, naturalization and citizenship 93. Labor Department 94. Loans 95.--Guarantees for loans 96. Tax matters 97.--Affidavits 98. Miscellaneous

IV.PERSONS LIABLE 99. Generally 100. Aiders and abettors 101. Corporations 102. Miscellaneous

V.PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT

A.In General 103. Jurisdiction and venue 104. Single or separate offenses and multiple violations 105. Estoppel and res judicata 106. Statute of limitations 107. Comments of prosecutor 108. Verdict 109. Appeal and review 110. Search and seizure 111. Miscellaneous

B.Indictment or Information

1.In General 112. Duplicity and multiplicity 113. Joinder and severance 114. Bill of particulars 115. Dismissal of indictment or counts 116. Miscellaneous

2.Sufficiency and Particular Allegations 117. Language of statute 118. Substantive offenses 119. Falsity of statement 120. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 121. Jurisdiction of federal entity 122. Materiality 123. Trick, scheme or device 124. Use, presentation or filing of statement or document 125. Miscellaneous

C.Defenses 126. Authority 127.--Federal entity 128. Double jeopardy 129. Entrapment 130. "Exculpatory no" defense 131. Immunity 132. Invalidity or unconstitutionality of statutory requirement 133. Reliance 134.--Expert advice 135. Miscellaneous

D.Evidence

1.In General 136. Variance between indictment and proof 137. Self-incrimination 138. Perjury rule 139. Inferences 140. Miscellaneous

2.Burden of Proof 141. Falsity 142. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 143. Materiality 144. Miscellaneous

3.Admissibility or Exclusion of Evidence 145. Confessions and admissions 146. Materiality 147. Prior or other acts 148. Relevant evidence 149. State of mind 150.--Intent, knowledge and willfulness 151.--Motive 152. Miscellaneous

4.Sufficiency of Evidence 153. Aiding and abetting 154. Circumstantial evidence 155. Concealment 156. Conspiracy 157. Corroborative evidence 158. Falsity 159. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 160.--Currency transaction reports 161.--Customs matters 162.--Tax matters 163.--Miscellaneous 164. Materiality 165.--Customs matters 166.--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 167.--Payments or disbursements 168. Miscellaneous 169.--Cases where evidence found sufficient 170.--Cases where evidence not found sufficient

E.Questions of Law or Fact 171. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 172. Materiality 173. Miscellaneous

F.Instructions to Jury 174. Generally 175. Evidence 176.--Character evidence 177. Intent, knowledge and willfulness 178.--Good faith 179.--Willful blindness instruction 180. Materiality 181.--Failure to instruct on issue of materiality 182.--Instruction on issue of materiality as matter of law 183. Miscellaneous

G.Sentence and Punishment 184. Discretionary matters 185. Debarment or disbarment 186.--Attorneys 187. Cumulative punishment 188. Miscellaneous
I.IN GENERAL 1. Generally

Term "serious harm" found in language of 18 USCS § 1589, encompassed more than physical violence, including more subtle psychological methods of coercion; therefore, appellate court found that district court properly charged those words and affirmed two defendants convictions of violating 18 USCS §§ 371, 1589, 1594, 1590, and 1592, as well as 18 USCS §§ 1343 and 1001, when defendants lured Jamaican laborers to New Hampshire through fraud, mistreated them during their employ, and coerced them to stay. United States v Bradley (2004, CA1 NH) 390 F3d 145.



18 USCS § 1001 is not to be interpreted narrowly or technically. United States v Olin Corp. (1979, WD NY) 465 F Supp 1120.

18 USCS § 1001 does not establish 3 separate offenses, but represents alternative means of committing single offense. United States v Olin Corp. (1979, WD NY) 465 F Supp 1120.

When Congress empowered Attorney General to prosecute members of Congress who knowingly and willfully falsified or knowingly and willfully failed to file financial disclosure statement, pursuant to 5 USCS App. § 104 and 18 USCS § 1001, Congress indicated its intent not to be exclusive interpreter of particular rules of U.S. House of Representatives implicated by required answers to financial disclosure statements. United States v Jefferson (2009, ED Va) 623 F Supp 2d 678, 79 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1017.



2. Constitutionality

Predecessor to 18 USCS § 1001 was upheld against attack on ground of vagueness; affidavits and reports required had been sufficiently described and duty enjoined had been adequately defined, so that anyone presenting such affidavits and reports to board set up under pertinent regulations was suitably charged with notice of consequence of knowingly and willfully including therein any false and fraudulent statements. United States v Gilliland (1941) 312 US 86, 85 L Ed 598, 61 S Ct 518.



18 USCS § 1001 is not unconstitutional on ground that its language is unclear and indefinite. United States v Matanky (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.

18 USCS § 1001 is not overly broad because it punishes unsworn oral statements. United States v Des Jardins (1985, CA9 Cal) 772 F2d 578.

18 USCS § 1001 is not unconstitutional as improperly delegating legislative authority to executive branch of government, and it is not void for indefiniteness or vagueness. United States v Houcks (1963, WD Mo) 224 F Supp 778.

18 USCS § 1001 gives sufficient notice as to what is proscribed conduct and is not void for vagueness. United States v Moller-Butcher (1983, DC Mass) 560 F Supp 550.

Indictment counts for presidential aide's making false statements to Congress are proper under 18 USCS § 1001, notwithstanding argument that President's primacy in foreign affairs precludes aide's prosecution; Congress may properly inquire into President's conduct of foreign affairs and presidential aides may not intentionally mislead Congress during inquiry. United States v North (1988, DC Dist Col) 708 F Supp 380.



3. Purpose

18 USCS § 1001 was intended to serve vital public purpose of protecting governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Ogden v United States (1962, CA9 Cal) 303 F2d 724.

18 USCS § 1001 serves as catch-all, reaching those false representations that might substantially impair basic functions entrusted by law to particular agency, but which are not prohibited by other statutes. United States v Rose (1978, CA9 Wash) 570 F2d 1358 (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) and (criticized in United States v Solis (1997, CAAF) 46 MJ 31, 1997 CAAF LEXIS 5) and (criticized in United States v Huber (2002, DC ND) 2002 US Dist LEXIS 306).

18 USCS § 1001 is designed to protect authorized functions of government departments and agencies from perversion which might result from deceptive practices enumerated. United States v Shanks (1979, CA2 NY) 608 F2d 73, cert den (1980) 444 US 1048, 62 L Ed 2d 736, 100 S Ct 740.

Purpose of 18 USCS § 1001 is clearly to protect Government from fraud and deceit and reach of § 1001 covers all materially false statements, including non-monetary fraud, made to any branch of Government. United States v Fern (1983, CA11 Fla) 696 F2d 1269, 83-1 USTC P 9151, 51 AFTR 2d 819.

Purpose of 18 USCS § 1001 is to protect United States Government from fraud or deceit. Lee v Denro, Inc. (1992) 91 Md App 822, 605 A2d 1017, 7 BNA IER Cas 720, 126 CCH LC P 57549.

In denying federal employee's motion to dismiss count of indictment for making false statement when seeking ethics advice, court rejected employee's argument that his prosecution was "unprecedented" because, however wise or unwise it may have been to prosecute federal employee for allegedly making false statements in connection with seeking ethics opinion, 18 USCS § 1001 itself did not contemplate any exceptions of that sort nor suggest that such policy rationale provided basis for barring prosecution; matter of whether such exception to statute should have existed was one for Congress, not for court. United States v Safavian (2006, DC Dist Col) 429 F Supp 2d 156.

Purpose of 18 USCS § 1001 is to punish those who render positive false statements designed to pervert or undermine functions of governmental departments and agencies. United States v Harrison (1985, ACMR) 20 MJ 710.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Former employer, biotechnology and drug company, was properly granted summary judgment on former employee's employment discrimination claim because employee's termination did not fall under public policy exception to Pennsylvania's at-will employment doctrine as neither 18 USCS §§ 371, 1001, nor 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4911 imposed directly on employee affirmative duty to report his employer's non-compliance with prescription drug's risk management program (RMP), and while RMP required that employer disclose certain compliance indicators, it mandated neither audit nor disclosure of report containing findings of audit; in absence of clear and direct duty of disclosure, statutorily imposed duty prong of exception did not apply. Brennan v Cephalon, Inc. (2008, CA3 NJ) 2008 US App LEXIS 21120.



4. Nature of crime and moral turpitude

Crime of making false and fraudulent statements under predecessor of 18 USCS § 1001 was not crime involving moral turpitude. Hirsch v INS (1962, CA9) 308 F2d 562 (criticized in Omagah v Ashcroft (2002, CA5) 288 F3d 254).

Making false statement to government conviction under 18 USCS § 1001(a) constitutes crime of moral turpetitude that renders convicted alien ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 USCS § 1229b(b) as matter of law. Ghani v Holder (2009, CA7) 557 F3d 836.

Even if alien's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as to claim were excused, alien could not succeed on his challenge to IJ's finding that his conviction for violating 18 USCS § 1001(a) rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 USCS § 1229b(b); alien was convicted under 18 USCS § 1001(a) for knowingly and willfully making false statement to government, which constituted crime of moral turpitude for cancellation of removal purposes as matter of law. Ghani v Holder (2009, CA7) 557 F3d 836.

BIA properly determined that petitioner alien's convictions for violations of 18 USCS §§ 371,1001, constituted crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under 8 USCS § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); because 18 USCS § 1001 contained some offenses that constituted CIMT and others that did not, court looked to indictments which clearly showed that alien was convicted of crimes involving fraud. Kellermann v Holder (2010, CA6) 592 F3d 700, 2010 FED App 10P.

Although alien who testified she had made false statement to immigration inspector admitted essential elements of offense under 18 USCS § 1001, where it was not clear alien had not admitted that there was any fraudulent statement or representation, crime which she had admitted committing was not crime involving moral turpitude. In re B---- M---- (1955, BIA) 6 I & N Dec 806.

Crime of abetting foreign visitor to make false and fraudulent statement in application for extension of stay, resulting in alien's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001, was not crime involving moral turpitude, since conviction under § 1001 would be possible without element of fraudulent intent. In re Espinosa (1962, BIA) 10 I & N Dec 98.

Since minimum element for conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 did not necessarily involve moral turpitude, evidence of physician's conviction for violation of § 1001 for submitting Medicare claim forms to private insurance carriers who were under contract with Federal Government to process and pay Medicare claims, could not, in and of itself, establish moral turpitude; however, offense that does not necessarily involve moral turpitude may nonetheless be committed by acts involving moral turpitude; where physician charged Medicare for services he did not render, it is clear that physician was charged with, and convicted of, nothing less than attempting to defraud and cheat Federal Government by false pretenses, and Board of Medical Examiners was entitled to consider fact of such moral turpitude in fixing degree of discipline. Matanky v Board of Medical Examiners (1978, 2nd Dist) 79 Cal App 3d 293, 144 Cal Rptr 826.



5. Civil actions and liability

Despite fact that criminal provisions of False Claims Act (18 USCS §§ 287, 1001; former 31 USCS § 231 and note) were altered and codified in this title, insofar as civil liability is concerned, version of these provisions contained in R.S. § 5438 [31 USCS § 231 note] continues to be official one. United States v Neifert-White Co. (1968) 390 US 228, 19 L Ed 2d 1061, 88 S Ct 959.

There is no implied civil remedy for violation of 18 USCS § 1001, since there is no affirmative indication that Congress intended to furnish one. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v Reeves (1987, CA4 Md) 816 F2d 130.

There is no civil cause of action for violation of 18 USCS §§ 241, 242, 371 or 1001. Fiorino v Turner (1979, DC Mass) 476 F Supp 962.

Alleged breach of 18 USCS § 1001 cannot serve to provide private citizen with cause of action in civil case arising out of prior eminent domain proceeding. Johl v Johl (1981, DC Conn) 556 F supp 5, affd without op (1982, CA2 Conn) 697 F2d 291, cert den (1983) 459 US 1219, 75 L Ed 2d 459, 103 S Ct 1224, reh den (1983) 460 US 1105, 76 L Ed 2d 370, 103 S Ct 1807.

Black female former postal employee lacked standing to sue individual under 18 USCS § 1001, where nothing in statute provided private right of action or civil remedies for private person affected by false statements made to government. Daniels v Am. Postal Worker Union (2001, ND Ill) 167 F Supp 2d 999, 145 CCH LC P 11189.

Private causes of action are precluded for criminal statutes located at 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 241. Anderson v Wiggins (2006, DC Dist Col) 460 F Supp 2d 1.

Complaint and declarations therein, submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion, were not subscribed under penalty of perjury within meaning of 28 USCS § 1746 because reference to 18 USCS § 1001 did not make declaration criminally punishable. Bloodstock Research Info. Servs. v edbain.com, LLC (2009, ED Ky) 622 F Supp 2d 504.

Veteran did not have private right of action against various government agencies for alleged violations of 18 USCS §§ 1001, 1503, 1505, 1512, and 1519, because criminal statutes did not provide basis for cause of action for civil liability. Peavey v Holder (2009, DC Dist Col) 657 F Supp 2d 180.

II.RELATION TO OTHER LAWS 6. Generally

18 USCS § 1001 does not limit its prohibition of falsification to matters which another statute or regulation requires be provided. United States v Olson (1985, CA9 Wash) 751 F2d 1126.

7. Title 10

Defense contractor had duty to disclose complete, current, and accurate data to Department of Defense, arising under 10 USCS § 2306, which was applicable to defendant's prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Poarch (1989, CA11 Fla) 878 F2d 1355, 35 CCF P 75700.



8.--Uniform Code of Military Justice

Mere fact that, in proof of acts of accused of wrongful importation, specific acts of accused were proved that may have violated 18 USCS § 1001 or any other federal civilian criminal statute, would not mean that such other specific criminal offense was or became offense against Uniform Code of Military Justice that was charged; assuming that violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was proved by evidence as to how accused accomplished his offense, that violation would not become offense charged so that two could be said to be same, and therefore, accused could not be tried by federal civil court under 18 USCS § 1001 for offense alleged and proved under Uniform Code of Military Justice. United States v Rubenstein (1954, US) 19 CMR 709.

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 will support conviction under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, even where Article 132 violation fails of proof, when accused was charged with using false writing for purpose of obtaining payment of claim against United States. United States v Hill (1974, US) 49 CMR 230.

Article 107 of Uniform Code of Military Justice, which relates to false statements, and 18 USCS § 1001, which relates to false statements in any matter within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States, are so closely related that one year maximum confinement prescribed as punishment for violation for Article 107 of Uniform Code of Military Justice must be regarded as maximum punishment for violation of § 1001, when laid as offense under Article 134 of Uniform Code of Military Justice. United States v Middleton (1960) 12 USCMA 54, 30 CMR 54.



10 USCS § 907, which criminalizes act of making false official statement, is similar in its scope and purpose to 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Harrison (1985, ACMR) 20 MJ 710.

False statements are broadly criminalized through Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 107, 10 USCS § 907, which is more expansive than its federal counterpart in 18 USCS § 1001 because purpose of military law, which is to maintain morale, good order, and discipline, has no parallel in civilian criminal law. United States v Harris (2009, AFCCA) 67 MJ 611, 2009 CCA LEXIS 27.

Though military courts that are considering scope of offense defined in Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 107, 10 USCS § 907, routinely cite to 18 USCS § 1001, which is its civilian counterpart, scope of military offense is more expansive than civilian offense because primary purpose of military criminal law--to maintain morale, good order, and discipline--has no parallel in civilian criminal law; even with this more expansive definition and purpose, however, not every false statement by service member rises to level of false official statement, as circumstances surrounding making of such statement assist in determining whether service member was in line of duty while making statement. United States v Caballero (2007, CGCCA) 65 MJ 674, 2007 CCA LEXIS 242.

Scope of offense of making false official statement as defined in Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 107, 10 USCS § 907 is more expansive than that of its civilian counterpart in 18 USCS § 1001 because primary purpose of military criminal law--to maintain morale, good order, and discipline--has no parallel in civilian criminal law. United States v Morgan (2007, NMCCA) 65 MJ 616, 2007 CCA LEXIS 138.

Scope of Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 107, 10 USCS § 907, and what constitutes official statement thereunder, is more expansive than scope of official statements under 18 USCS § 1001 because of nature of military law to maintain good morale, order, and discipline. United States v Day (2008, CAAF) 66 MJ 172, 2008 CAAF LEXIS 404.

9. Title 15

15 USCS § 645(a), dealing with false statements contained in applications to Small Business Administration, does not impliedly repeal 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Carter (1976, CA5 Ga) 526 F2d 1276, reh den (1977, CA5 Ga) 550 F2d 1285.

Securities and Exchange Commission's denial of evidentiary hearing in broker's disciplinary proceedings did not violate due process because 17 CFR § 201.250(b), which permitted summary disposition, was based on permissible reading of 15 USCS § 80b-3(f), and his scienter, intent to defraud, had been established by his guilty plea to charge of making false statement under 18 USCS § 1001(a). Kornman v SEC (2010, App DC) 592 F3d 173, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 95574.

Government can prosecute alleged corporate insiders under 18 USCS § 1001 for alleged false statements concerning corporation's income and expenses in quarterly reports required under 15 USCS § 78m(a)(2), despite existence of 15 USCS § 78ff(a) which imposes criminal penalties for violations of reporting requirements, because § 1001 contains broad language and it was intended to overlap and coexist with--not to preempt--more specific false statement statutes. United States v Lang (1991, DC Md) 766 F Supp 389, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 95858, 33 Fed Rules Evid Serv 96.


Yüklə 322,02 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə