Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

22. Title 49

Since 18 USCS § 1001 has no maximum sentence, and there is nothing in 49 USCS § 521 suggesting intent to repeal or supersede 18 USCS § 1001, government may prosecute under § 1001 even if Motor Carrier Safety Act provided another basis for prosecuting same conduct. United States v McCord, Inc. (1998, CA8 Ark) 143 F3d 1095 (criticized in United States v Johansson (2001, CA9 Cal) 249 F3d 848, 2001 CDOS 3515, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4345) and (criticized in United States v Lucien (2003, CA2 NY) 347 F3d 45).

District court erred in dismissing two indictments under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) for making materially false statements on applications for secure identification display area (SIDA) badges, as defendants' failure to disclose convictions for misdemeanor firearms offenses was material; Federal Aviation Administration did not exceed its authority under 49 USCS § 44936(b)(2) by designating misdemeanor firearms use as factor precluding eligibility for SIDA badge. United States v Baer (2003, CA4 Va) 324 F3d 282, dismd (2003, ED Va) 274 F Supp 2d 778, affd (2004, CA4 Va) 92 Fed Appx 942.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Pilot's defamation claim against air carrier did not fall within exception to limitations on liability set forth in 49 USCS § 44703(i)(3) because, although pilot alleged that air carrier knew information maintained by air carrier was false and that maintaining it was violation of 18 USCS § 1001, § 1001 did not apply because pilot did not allege in his defamation claim that air carrier provided false information to any branch of United States government; instead, pilot alleged that air carrier provided false information to another carrier. Borodkin v Omni Air Int'l (2008, CA9 Nev) 2008 US App LEXIS 11432.

23. State laws

18 USCS § 1001 may be used as basis for retaliatory discharge claim in case involving state which adheres to terminable-at-will doctrine, but which has adopted public policy exception (discharge of employee for his refusal to violate law in course of employment) to such doctrine. Bell v Ashland Petroleum Co. (1993, SD W Va) 812 F Supp 639, 8 BNA IER Cas 358, 126 CCH LC P 57464.

Statutory requirement of veracity in context of federal investigations, 18 USCS § 1001, can support allegation by former employee under public policy exception to state at-will employment doctrine, because adherence to federal law by states is in best interest of citizens of state and because state courts allow that federal law may state public policy cognizable in state common law. Hanson v Gichner Sys. Group, Inc. (1993, MD Pa) 831 F Supp 403, 8 BNA IER Cas 1258.

Missouri recognizes public policy exception to employment at will doctrine where employee is discharged because he refused to commit unlawful act or actions in violation of clear mandate of public policy, and alleged violation of 18 USCS § 1001 is sufficient to support cause of action for purposes of such exception. Petersimes v Crane Co. (1992, Mo App) 835 SW2d 514, 7 BNA IER Cas 1014, 127 CCH LC P 57594.

24. Miscellaneous

Defendant is not denied due process by virtue of fact that he is prosecuted under 18 USCS § 1001 for felony, rather than under overlapping misdemeanor statute, as prosecution may be brought under either statute at discretion of prosecutor. United States v Smith (1975, CA5 Fla) 523 F2d 771, cert den (1976) 429 US 817, 50 L Ed 2d 76, 97 S Ct 59, reh den (1976) 429 US 987, 50 L Ed 2d 599, 97 S Ct 509.

Defendant was properly indicted under 18 USCS § 1001 for failing to report disability payments to Labor Department, even though 5 USCS § 8105 makes no mention of reporting of disability compensation requirements, since 18 USCS § 1001 is catch-all, reaching those false representations that might substantially impair basic functions entrusted by law to particular agency which are not prohibited by other statutes. United States v Kappes (1991, CA6 Ky) 936 F2d 227, reh den (1991, CA6) 1991 US App LEXIS 15277 and (criticized in United States v Shafer (1999, CA6 Mich) 199 F3d 826, 5 BNA WH Cas 2d 1426, 1999 FED App 427P).

In defendant's trial for violating 18 USCS §§ 287 and 1001, defendant's stipulation to proceed with jury of fewer than 12 members pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(b)(2)(A) did not constitute violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 31 requirement that verdict be unanimous notwithstanding some indication that juror who "refused to deliberate" was actually holdout against conviction; because defendant knowingly and intelligently stipulated to dismissing juror and receiving unanimous verdict by remaining 11 jurors, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). United States v Murphy (2007, CA9 Cal) 483 F3d 639.

Defendant's 96-month sentence based on unlawful distribution of prescription drugs, 21 USCS §§ 331(b) and 333(b)(1)(D), monetary transactions from unlawful activity, 18 USCS § 1957(a); and false statements, 18 USCS § 1001(a)(3), was proper because there was no bad faith or impermissible motive in prosecution's decision not to request downward departure for cooperation under USSG § 5K1.1, and loss calculation, which included stolen drugs, was appropriate. United States v Marti-Lon (2008, CA1 Puerto Rico) 524 F3d 295.

While appellee National Marine Fisheries Service's "reasonable and prudent alternative" (RPA) on fishing and leatherback turtle takings under 16 USCS § 1536 was prediction, in light of regulations under 50 CFR §§ 648.7(b)(1)(I), 648.14(a)(4), and enforcement and penalty provisions of 16 USCS §§ 1857(1)(A), 1858(a), and 18 USCS § 1001, Service's judgment that it was justified in concluding that vessels would reach lower 13.1 percent mortality rate as planned in RPA schedule was affirmed over objection by appellant environmental groups. Oceana, Inc. v Gutierrez (2007, App DC) 488 F3d 1020, 64 Envt Rep Cas 1577, 37 ELR 20124.

In absence of proof that Federal Water Pollution Control Act required corporate defendant to file reports with governmental agencies, Act did not preclude government from charging corporation with violating 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Olin Corp. (1979, WD NY) 465 F Supp 1120.

Petitioners were properly deemed extraditable under "double criminality" requirement, where Hong Kong crimes they are charged with committing are substantially similar to United States crimes under 18 USCS §§ 1001, 1005 and 1006, because petitioners are accused of large-scale fraudulent loans scheme using international telephone and telegraph services. Tang Yee-Chun v Immundi (1987, SD NY) 686 F Supp 1004.

Conviction for making false statements under 18 USCS § 1001 may be used to impeach defendant in prosecution for extortion and other offenses, because conviction is admissible under FRE 609(a)(2), notwithstanding argument that circumstances are unrelated and admission would be prejudicial. United States v Finley (1989, ND Ill) 708 F Supp 906.

Plaintiff did not have private right of action against various government agencies and representatives for alleged violations of 18 USCS §§ 241 and 1001. Abou-Hussein v Gates (2009, DC Dist Col) 657 F Supp 2d 77.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's case was transferred, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(b), from United States District Court of New Hampshire to Southern District of New York for convenience of defendant and witnesses, and in interest of justice; defendant lived with his family and maintained small business in New York, defendant would have been financially burdened defending himself in New Hampshire, defense witnesses were in New York, Government could present its case in New York, and defendant would have much easier, convenient, and effective access to counsel where he lived. United States v Mamadou (2005, DC NH) 2005 DNH 72.

III.ELEMENTS OF OFFENSES

A.In General 25. Generally

It constitutes violation of 18 USCS § 1001 for anyone willfully to make or use false writing or document, knowing that it contains false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, and intending that it shall bear relation or purpose as to source matter which is within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States, and with false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry which it contains having materiality on department or agency matter. Ebeling v United States (1957, CA8 Mo) 248 F2d 429, cert den (1957) 355 US 907, 2 L Ed 2d 261, 78 S Ct 334; Gilbert v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 359 F2d 285, 66-1 USTC P 9386, cert den (1966) 385 US 882, 17 L Ed 2d 109, 87 S Ct 169.

Five elements necessary to sustain conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 are: (1) statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction. United States v Godwin (1978, CA5 Ga) 566 F2d 975.

Elements of 18 USCS § 1001 violation include: (1) knowingly making false statements; (2) which is material; and (3) made with regard to any matter within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States. 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).

Elements of violation of 18 USCS § 1009 are (1) statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction. United States v Gilbertson (1978, CA8 Minn) 588 F2d 584.

18 USCS § 1001 imposes criminal penalties on one who: (1) makes statement that, (2) was false, (3) was material, (4) was made knowingly and willfully, and (5) was made in matter within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States. United States v Brantley (1986, CA7 Ill) 786 F2d 1322, 20 Fed Rules Evid Serv 302, cert den (1986) 477 US 908, 91 L Ed 2d 572, 106 S Ct 3284 and (ovrld on other grounds as stated in United States v Pearson (1995, CD Ill) 897 F Supp 1147) and (criticized in United States v McGuire (1996, CA5 Miss) 96-1 USTC P 50163).

Elements of an offense under 18 USCS § 1001 are: (1) that defendant made a statement; (2) that statement was false and defendant knew it was false; (3) that statement was made knowingly and willfully; (4) that statement was within jurisdiction of a federal agency; and (5) that statement was material. United States v Clearfield (1973, ED Pa) 358 F Supp 564.

In order to be convicted under 18 USCS § 1001, defendant must be shown to have made statement or representation that was false, material, made knowingly and willfully, and made in matter within jurisdiction of federal agency. Lee v Denro, Inc. (1992) 91 Md App 822, 605 A2d 1017, 7 BNA IER Cas 720, 126 CCH LC P 57549.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: To establish conviction for making false statement to law enforcement officials, government must prove five elements: (1) statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction. United States v Tureaud (2006, CA11 Fla) 2006 US App LEXIS 3240.

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

1.In General 26. Generally

Under 18 USCS § 1001, fraud need not be perpetrated directly on or to governmental agency or department involved; false statement need only relate to and affect a relationship within the jurisdiction of agency or department of United States. United States v Munoz (1974, ED Mich) 392 F Supp 183, affd without op (1975, CA6 Mich) 529 F2d 526.

Legislative history of 18 USCS § 1001, which is analogous to Article 107 of Uniform Code of Military Justice, demonstrates that, while false statements do not necessarily have to involve act of cheating or swindling government, they must be about and pertain to matter within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States. United States v Hutchins (1955) 5 USCMA 422, 18 CMR 46; United States v Disher (1957) 25 CMR 683.

27. Jurisdiction

As used in 18 USCS § 1001, term "jurisdiction" is not limited to its technical sense and means "power to deal or act" on subject matter, and term "agency" includes "the military." United States v Smart (1956, US) 23 CMR 454.

Because there is valid legislative interest in protecting integrity of official inquiries, term "jurisdiction" should not be given narrow or technical meaning for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001; statutory basis for agency's request for information provides jurisdiction enough to punish fraudulent statements under § 1001. Bryson v United States (1969) 396 US 64, 24 L Ed 2d 264, 90 S Ct 355, 72 BNA LRRM 2833, 61 CCH LC P 10510.

Term "jurisdiction" as used in 18 USCS § 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully make false statement "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States," should not be given narrow or technical meaning; limiting such term to "the power to make final or binding determinations. United States v Rodgers (1984) 466 US 475, 80 L Ed 2d 492, 104 S Ct 1942.

The word "jurisdiction" as used in 18 USCS § 1001 means power to act upon information when received. United States v Adler (1967, CA2 NY) 380 F2d 917, cert den (1967) 389 US 1006, 19 L Ed 2d 602, 88 S Ct 561.

Term "jurisdiction" should not be given narrow or technical meaning for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Fern (1983, CA11 Fla) 696 F2d 1269, 83-1 USTC P 9151, 51 AFTR 2d 819.

Term "jurisdiction" was different term than "jurisdiction" as used in connection with courts; it was synonymous with word "power." United States v White (1946, DC Cal) 69 F Supp 562.

28. "Matter within the jurisdiction"

Critical language of 18 USCS § 1001 stating "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" is not sufficiently ambiguous to permit rule of lenity to control in construing statute. United States v Rodgers (1984) 466 US 475, 80 L Ed 2d 492, 104 S Ct 1942.

Phrase "matter within the jurisdiction" of federal agency in 18 USCS § 1001 must be given broad, nontechnical meaning. United States v Lambert (1974, CA5 Fla) 501 F2d 943 (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Rodriguez-Rios (1994, CA5 Tex) 14 F3d 1040).

For purposes of 18 USCS § 1001, a false statement is deemed to have been made in a manner within the jurisdiction of the federal agency even if it was not made to the agency itself, if inevitably agency had been deceived. United States v Krause (1975, CA5 Fla) 507 F2d 113, 88 BNA LRRM 2856.

In order to determine when matter is "within the jurisdiction" of agency or department of United States, it is necessary to examine statute governing particular transaction with department or agency of United States. United States v Herberman (1978, CA5 Tex) 583 F2d 222.

There was sufficient evidence to prove federal jurisdictional element supporting defendant's 18 USCS § 1001 convictions; evidence revealed pattern of improper payments of Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits to claimants who were not in fact deprived of living as direct result of typhoon. United States v Atalig (2007, CA9) 502 F3d 1063.

Because state agency disaster relief funds came from Federal Emergency Management Agency, federal agency with oversight authority over state program and defendant's state agency application stated it was made to applicable federal and state agencies, defendant's false statements to state agency were made in matter within federal agency's jurisdiction, and district court's exercise of jurisdiction under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) was proper. United States v Taylor (2009, CA5 Miss) 582 F3d 558.

Fact that air-monitoring reports in connection with project were sent to Virgin Islands Housing Authority did not mean that reports did not pertain to matter within jurisdiction of federal government; federal agency funded project and had power to exercise authority over it. United States v Starnes (2009, CA3 VI) 583 F3d 196.

29. Submission or presentation to federal entity

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 does not require that false statement must actually have been submitted to a department or agency of the United States, but rather that it was contemplated that statement was to be utilized in a matter which was within the jurisdiction of such department or agency. United States v Candella (1973, CA2 NY) 487 F2d 1223, cert den (1974) 415 US 977, 39 L Ed 2d 872, 94 S Ct 1563.

Affidavit need not have been submitted directly to government agency for 18 USCS § 1001 to apply. United States v Lange (1976, CA5 La) 528 F2d 1280.

False statement need not be made directly to federal agency to sustain 18 USCS § 1001 conviction as long as federal funds are involved. United States v Wolf (1981, CA10 Okla) 645 F2d 23.

False statement may fall within 18 USCS § 1001 even when it is not submitted to federal agency directly and federal agency's role is limited to financial support of program it does not itself directly administer; in emergency relief context it should be authorization of federal assistance that triggers federal jurisdiction under § 1001. United States v Petullo (1983, CA7 Ill) 709 F2d 1178.

There is no requirement under 18 USCS § 1001 that false document be presented to agency or department of United States, only requirement being that false document shall be made in matter within jurisdiction of such department or agency. United States v Myers (1955, DC Cal) 131 F Supp 525.

30. Action by federal entity

Statutory basis for agency's request for information provides jurisdiction of agency enough to punish fraudulent statements under 18 USCS § 1001. Bryson v United States (1969) 396 US 64, 24 L Ed 2d 264, 90 S Ct 355, 72 BNA LRRM 2833, 61 CCH LC P 10510.

False statement is submitted in matter within jurisdiction of department or agency within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001 if it relates to matter as to which department had power to act. Ogden v United States (1962, CA9 Cal) 303 F2d 724.

When false statement is made to agency with power to allow privilege or grant award, jurisdiction of agency is established so as to warrant prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001; if agency has power to enact binding regulatory requirements and determine if and to what extent individual comes within regulatory proscriptions, this agency, too, has jurisdiction. Friedman v United States (1967, CA8 Mo) 374 F2d 363, 1 ALR Fed 348.

18 USCS § 1001 is violated even if only agency involvement is reimbursement of expenditures and statement is not submitted directly to agency. United States v Stanford (1978, CA7 Ill) 589 F2d 285, 50 ALR Fed 656, cert den (1979) 440 US 983, 60 L Ed 2d 244, 99 S Ct 1794.

Prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 was proper, even though false statements in deposition were presented during federal judicial proceeding, since defendant was trying to deceive government by attempting to extract more money for property restoration then he deserved from city housing authority which had annual contributions contract with U.S. HUD, although U.S. government was not party to proceedings. United States v Lawson (1987, CA11 Fla) 809 F2d 1514, reh den, en banc (1987, CA11 Fla) 815 F2d 717.

False statements which trading company made, when applying for license for release of its bank deposit, to Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, were actionable under 18 USCS § 1001, even though statements did not prompt any official action, as that office told company, albeit erroneously, that no license was necessary, since prompting of agency action is not element of 18 USCS § 1001 offense. United States v Arch Trading Co. (1993, CA4 Va) 987 F2d 1087 (criticized in United States v Hersch (1996, CA4 Va) 1996 US App LEXIS 26640).

Indictment alleging that defendant made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements under 18 USCS § 1001 was not subject to dismissal for "failure to allege elements" because defendant's premise that Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was not within executive branch of government was entirely unfounded; FEC is independent agency within executive branch of federal government. United States v Rosen (2005, CD Cal) 365 F Supp 2d 1126.

31. Miscellaneous

In case where state official prepared false invoices pertaining to funds paid to state for work already completed on a federally-funded project, the government retains jurisdiction under 18 USCS § 1001 to protect its interest in seeing to the proper and lawful application of specially designated funds. United States v Jones (1972, CA8 Ark) 464 F2d 1118, cert den (1973) 409 US 1111, 34 L Ed 2d 692, 93 S Ct 920.

18 USCS § 1001 offense, once committed in presence of representative of one agency, does not preclude other agency from pursuing its statutory duties; thus, where probable cause existed to arrest defendant for falsely stating her citizenship to immigration service, appellant's misstatement regarding her citizenship did not preclude customs service from ascertaining whether defendant had further items to declare. United States v Silva (1983, CA2 NY) 715 F2d 43.

Whether government agency had authority to seek employment and self-employment data from defendant was irrelevant to validity of his convictions under 18 USCS § 1001, since § 1001 applies to other false statements made to federal agencies besides those required to be filed by law. United States v Arcadipane (1994, CA1 Mass) 41 F3d 1.

2.Particular Departments, Agencies or Entities 32. Congress

18 USCS § 1001 did not apply to Congresswoman's filing of her 1991 financial disclosure form with House Clerk, since Congress did not intend to create Executive Branch jurisdiction under 18 USCS § 1001 but rather, at least until 1996, plainly intended to vest primary authority for ensuring § 1001 compliance with congressional ethics committees and other analogous entities. United States v Oakar (1997, App DC) 324 US App DC 104, 111 F3d 146.

18 USCS § 1001 embraces false statements made to House of Representatives by Congressmen. United States v Hansen (1983, DC Dist Col) 566 F Supp 162.

33. Courts

Tax Court is agency within contemplation 18 USCS § 1001. Stein v United States (1966, CA5 Tex) 363 F2d 587, 66-2 USTC P 9518, 18 AFTR 2d 5725, cert den (1966) 385 US 934, 17 L Ed 2d 214, 87 S Ct 294.

Phrase "matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency" includes judicial branch of government. United States v Abrahams (1979, CA5 Tex) 604 F2d 386 (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Rodriguez-Rios (1994, CA5 Tex) 14 F3d 1040) and (criticized in Hubbard v United States (1995) 514 US 695, 131 L Ed 2d 779, 115 S Ct 1754, 95 CDOS 3581, 95 Daily Journal DAR 6212, 9 FLW Fed S 3).

Bankruptcy Court is department of United States within intendment of 18 USCS § 1001 since "department or agency," as used in § 1001, was intended to describe executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; thus, filing false performance bond in defendant's personal and corporate bankruptcy proceedings constituted violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Rowland (1986, CA5 Miss) 789 F2d 1169, cert den (1986) 479 US 964, 93 L Ed 2d 409, 107 S Ct 464.

Defendant violated 18 USCS § 1001 by concealing his name, identity, and nonadmission to bar before the United States district court for District of Columbia. Morgan v United States (1962, App DC) 114 US App DC 13, 309 F2d 234, cert den (1963) 373 US 917, 10 L Ed 2d 416, 83 S Ct 1306, reh den (1963) 374 US 858, 10 L Ed 2d 1084, 83 S Ct 1879 and (criticized in Hubbard v United States (1995) 514 US 695, 131 L Ed 2d 779, 115 S Ct 1754, 95 CDOS 3581, 95 Daily Journal DAR 6212, 9 FLW Fed S 3) and (criticized in United States v Butler (2004, SD NY) 351 F Supp 2d 121).