Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

34.--During judicial proceeding exception

18 USCS § 1001 does not apply to the introduction of false documents as evidence in a criminal proceeding. United States v Erhardt (1967, CA6 Ky) 381 F2d 173.

18 USCS § 1001 is not proper basis for charging defendant with making false statement in judicial proceeding, that is bail hearing. 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).

Fraudulent letters of recommendation submitted to sentencing judge by convicted defendant with intent to influence judge in sentencing are part of trial court's adjudicative functions to which 18 USCS § 1001 does not apply, without regard to whether letters are submitted to court in courtroom or in chambers. United States v Mayer (1985, CA9 Ariz) 775 F2d 1387 (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).

35. Custom authorities

When defendant was asked if he didn't have more money and if he wanted to declare more that was his opportunity, and he replied that all money he had was declared, but in fact he had additional $ 19,500 in currency, defendant caused false representation to be made to customs authorities in violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Zavala (1944, CA2 NY) 139 F2d 830.

Where clearance of exports was required to be passed upon by collector of customs for purpose of economic information, false statement concerning exports to collector was matter within jurisdiction of bureau of customs. United States v Leviton (1951, CA2 NY) 193 F2d 848, cert den (1952) 343 US 946, 96 L Ed 1350, 72 S Ct 860, reh den (1952) 343 US 988, 96 L Ed 1375, 72 S Ct 1079.

Transportation of gems into United States is matter within jurisdiction of United States Customs. United States v Masters (1979, CA9 Cal) 612 F2d 1117, cert den (1980) 449 US 847, 66 L Ed 2d 57, 101 S Ct 134.

Export shipper who fraudulently lists, on Shipping Export Declaration form, West Germany as final destination of aircraft parts which shipper knows to be bound for Libya may be convicted of filing false statement with government. United States v Malsom (1985, CA7 Ill) 779 F2d 1228.

United States Customs Service had jurisdiction over shippers' export declarations, despite fact that they were not generated by it, since they are commonly used by Service in performance of its regularly conducted activities. United States v Gafyczk (1988, CA11 Fla) 847 F2d 685.

36. Environmental Protection Agency

False water quality data reports which water treatment plant manager filed with state health department were matters within jurisdiction of EPA, even though it had granted primary authority for safe drinking water standards to state, since such grant was not exclusive, EPA having retained authority to enforce its regulations, and since EPA's funding of state public water program is conditioned, in part, on results of its annual evaluations of that program. United States v Wright (1993, CA10 Okla) 988 F2d 1036.

False statements which employees of county water district made to state water agency regarding drinking water turbidity levels came within jurisdiction of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for purposes of prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001, since EPA retained authority to enforce its regulations and actively assure state compliance with national safe water standards. United States v White (2001, CA6 Ky) 270 F3d 356, 53 Envt Rep Cas 1946, 32 ELR 20298.

Making of false water turbidity reports for water treatment plant, as required by regulations promulgated by EPA pursuant to Safe Water Drinking Act (42 USCS §§ 300f et seq.), in state that had been given primary enforcement responsibility over drinking water standards (42 USCS § 300g-2), is matter within jurisdiction of EPA for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001, which makes it crime to make false written report in any matter within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States. United States v Moseley (1991, ED Mo) 761 F Supp 90, 23 ELR 20969.

37. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Language of 18 USCS § 1001 making it criminal to knowingly and willfully make false statement "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" encompasses criminal investigations conducted by FBI and Secret Service; criminal investigation falls within meaning of "any matter," and FBI and Secret Service qualify as departments or agencies of United States. United States v Rodgers (1984) 466 US 475, 80 L Ed 2d 492, 104 S Ct 1942.

Statements to FBI falsely pointing to possible criminal conduct that it within power of FBI to investigate is matter within jurisdiction of FBI under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Massey (1977, CA5 Fla) 550 F2d 300.

Investigation made by Federal Bureau of Investigation of alleged bribery of Federal Housing Administration officials was "matter" within meaning of that term in 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Stark (1955, DC Md) 131 F Supp 190.

Federal Bureau of Investigation is an "agency" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Chevoor (1975, DC Mass) 392 F Supp 436, revd on other grounds (1975, CA1 Mass) 526 F2d 178, cert den (1976) 425 US 935, 48 L Ed 2d 176, 96 S Ct 1665 and (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 Solis (1997, CAAF) 46 MJ 31, 1997 CAAF LEXIS 5).

18 USCS § 1001 may punish false statements made to agents of Department of Justice including Antitrust Division attorneys, as well as false statements made to agents of FBI, so that order sought by corporation in course of antitrust suit, to prohibit use of FBI agents to interview its employees while conceding that attorneys from Department of Justice could interview, on grounds that introduction of Bureau subjected its potential witnesses to threat of perjury sanctions not otherwise present, did not issue. United States v International Business Machines Corp. (1976, SD NY) 415 F Supp 668, 1976-2 CCH Trade Cases P 61170.

Defendant could be charged under 18 USCS § 1001 for making false statements to federal agent when federal agent was officer of Federal Bureau of Investigation. United States v Grossman (2003, ND Ill) 272 F Supp 2d 760.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Record demonstrated that FBI was legitimately investigating potential violations of Hobbs Act, 18 USCS § 1951, committed by local district attorney based on his alleged extortion of money from criminal defendants with regard to plea agreement negotiations, pursuant to its statutory authority, when it interviewed defendant; thus, FBI had statutory basis upon which to inquire information from defendant, establishing 18 USCS § 1001's jurisdictional element. United States v Richey (2008, CA11 Ala) 2008 US App LEXIS 11503.

38. Grand jury

Witness who previously gave false negative responses to government-initiated inquiries will not incriminate himself by answering same questions truthfully in subsequent grand jury proceeding as earlier falsehoods are not construed as criminal acts under 18 USCS § 1001; statute covers only two categories of false statement: those in support of false claims, and those tending to pervert authorized functions of department and agencies. United States v Chevoor (1975, CA1 Mass) 526 F2d 178, cert den (1976) 425 US 935, 48 L Ed 2d 176, 96 S Ct 1665 and (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 Solis (1997, CAAF) 46 MJ 31, 1997 CAAF LEXIS 5).

Affidavit of compliance with grand jury subpoena, which government alleged to be false due to defendants' intentional withholding of production of certain documents, was not within ambit of 18 USCS § 1001, since Congress did not intend statute to have such sweep, and there are other statutes under which perjury or obstruction of grand jury's processes may be prosecuted. United States v Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (1992, CA10 Kan) 957 F2d 749, 1992-1 CCH Trade Cases P 69736 (criticized in United States v Tracy (1997, CA2 NY) 108 F3d 473).

Defendants' statements were exempt from prosecution pursuant to "judicial function" exception to 18 USCS § 1001, where they were made to FBI agents acting under authority of grand jury, as specifically stated by indictment, and as demonstrated by fact that they served subpoena duces tecum on defendants' business records for that grand jury. United States v Wood (1993, CA10 NM) 6 F3d 692 (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).

Defendant had been improperly indicted under 18 USCS § 1001 because federal grand jury is not "agency of the United States" within meaning of section, and because section was not intended to cover situation in which defendant is accused of having made false and fraudulent reply when interrogated by grand jury. United States v Allen (1961, SD Cal) 193 F Supp 954.

39. Health, education and welfare

False statements made in connection with audit of HEW program were within jurisdiction of that agency where it had statutory authority to conduct such audit. United States v Beasley (1977, CA5 La) 550 F2d 261, reh den (1977, CA5 La) 553 F2d 100 and reh den (1977, CA5 La) 553 F2d 101 and cert den (1977) 434 US 863, 54 L Ed 2d 138, 98 S Ct 195, reh den (1977) 434 US 961, 54 L Ed 2d 323, 98 S Ct 496 and cert den (1977) 434 US 938, 54 L Ed 2d 297, 98 S Ct 427 and (criticized in United States v Blankenship (2004, CA11 Fla) 382 F3d 1110, 17 FLW Fed C 953).

There is no merit in defendant physician's argument that no jurisdiction exists in prosecution for making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements in Medicaid and Medicare claims, matter within jurisdiction of Department of Health, Education and Welfare, because Blue Cross and Blue Shield are not "departments or agencies" of government for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001; contractual relationship whereby Blue Cross and Blue Shield pay Medicare claims will not prevent prosecution under § 1001. United States v Herberman (1978, CA5 Tex) 583 F2d 222.

Stipend rosters maintained by university as part of upward bound program funded under Department of Health, Education and Welfare were matters within jurisdiction of United States agency within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Hooper (1979, CA7 Wis) 596 F2d 219, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1306.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare is department or agency of United States within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001; Medicaid statement submitted to state agency for ultimate transmittal to Department was within jurisdiction of federal agency. United States v Braunstein (1978, DC NJ) 474 F Supp 1.

Government was granted injunctive relief against defendants for violations of 18 USCS § 1345 because defendants, inter alia, directed sales efforts at selling Botulinum Toxin Type A to non-research physicians, knowing that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not approved it for human use; FDA investigators found copies of invoices and completed order forms reflecting interstate sales. United States v Livdahl (2005, SD Fla) 356 F Supp 2d 1289, 18 FLW Fed D 479.

40.--Medicare

The jurisdictional requirement of 18 USCS § 1001 was satisfied where defendant submitted false request for Medicare payments to an insurance company which was acting as the paying agent for the Social Security Administration. United States v Kraude (1972, CA9 Cal) 467 F2d 37, cert den (1972) 409 US 1076, 34 L Ed 2d 664, 93 S Ct 684.

Private insurance carriers under contract with the federal government to process and pay Medicare claims are government paying agents for the purposes of 18 USCS § 1001. 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.

Prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 for submission of false Medicare claims was proper, and not barred by enactment of 42 USCS § 408. 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).

Fraudulent notations in opthalmologist's own files concerning authorized functions of Medicare which prevented review of payments made to physician were within federal jurisdiction under 18 USCS § 1001, since statute not only criminalizes false statements or representations to federal agency, but each false entry made to conceal material facts. United States v Rutgard (1997, CA9 Cal) 108 F3d 1041, 97 CDOS 1698, 97 Daily Journal DAR 3185, app dismd (1997, CA9 Cal) 1997 US App LEXIS 6706 and op replaced (1997, CA9 Cal) 116 F3d 1270, 97 CDOS 4197, 97 Daily Journal DAR 7048.

Because doctors could submit claims for athletic trainers' services and disclose they were not Medicare benefit, and appeal denial, exception to 42 USCS § 405(h) did not apply, dismissal of plaintiff athletic trainers' association's claim, challenging defendant Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services' new Medicare Part B rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 66,236, 66,352 (Nov. 15, 2004), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, was affirmed; criminal liability under 18 USCS §§ 287, 1001, 1035, 1341, 1343, 1347, 1963(a), 42 USCS § 1320a-7b(a), required knowing or intentional false statement; consequently, disclosure that services were not Medicare benefit diminished disincentive to challenge rule administratively. Nat'l Ath. Trainers' Ass'n v United States HHS (2006, CA5 Tex) 455 F3d 500.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Because reasonable jury could have found that Medicare claims were fraudulent because there was insufficient supervision of technicians by physician, motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 was improperly granted. However, since this conspiracy theory was supported only by tenuous inference, new trial was appropriate. United States v Mitchell (2006, CA11 Ga) 2006 US App LEXIS 2679.

Unpublished: Rational trier of fact could have found husband and wife guilty of 18 USCS § 1001 beyond reasonable doubt, as they made false statements to private contractor who administered Medicare program in state; contractor's contractual responsibilities included receiving, adjudicating, and paying Medicare claims with government money. United States v Hames (2006, CA5 Tex) 2006 US App LEXIS 14494.

41. Housing

Executive officer of municipal housing agency who concealed fact that he was partner in architectural firm which benefited from contract with municipal agency incidental to construction of municipal housing project entirely financed by loan from federal housing and home finance agency violated 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Kenny (1956, CA3 NJ) 236 F2d 128, cert den (1956) 352 US 894, 1 L Ed 2d 87, 77 S Ct 133.

Affidavits executed by defendants for services rendered in moving property of tenants who were forced to move because of federally funded urban renewal projects, were within purview of 18 USCS § 1001 even though they were executed on forms prepared by city and not by HUD, since defendants not only knew that city would make the affidavits available to HUD for reimbursement of moving expenses it paid to defendants, but that any false statements contained therein would constitute violations of United States Code subjecting them to criminal sanctions. 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.

Although false statement made to Department of Housing and Urban Development is actionable under both 18 USCS §§ 1010 and 1001, only § 1001 governs fraudulent schemes. United States v Waechter (1985, CA6 Mich) 771 F2d 974.

Jurisdiction lies under 18 USCS § 1001, where defendant made false statements in deposition during state court proceeding, although named party, city housing authority, was only agent of federal agency, U.S. HUD, since U.S. HUD was actively concerned with outcome of litigation and had power to act upon results of state court action. United States v Lawson (1987, CA11 Fla) 809 F2d 1514, reh den, en banc (1987, CA11 Fla) 815 F2d 717.

Court found that sufficient evidence existed to convict appellant of violating 18 USCS § 1001; appellant engaged in scheme to conceal material facts from city, in its role as administrator of federal block grant funds, specifically withholding material facts from city and consequently HUD about family's violation of conflict-of-interest rules found at 24 C.F.R. § 570.611(b). United States v Moore (2006, CA7 Wis) 446 F3d 671.

Conviction of defendant for making or causing to be made false statements to Federal Housing Administration for purpose of inducing agency action in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 estopped him from disputing that he caused false certifications to be submitted to FHA, thereby inducing it to insure certain mortgages, in suit arising from same facts by United States under False Claims Act (former 31 USCS §§ 231 et seq.), after mortgagors defaulted and United States was called upon to honor claims of mortgagee. United States v Hibbs (1976, ED Pa) 420 F Supp 1365, vacated on other grounds (1977, CA3 Pa) 568 F2d 347.

Action alleging false statements by principals of construction company was properly brought under 18 USCS § 1001, even though company dealt directly with Virgin Islands Housing Authority, where Authority operates using funds provided by HUD, because allegedly false statements were clearly made in matter within jurisdiction of department of executive branch of U.S. United States v Koenig (1999, DC VI) 40 VI 440, 53 F Supp 2d 803, affd without op (2001, CA3 VI) 281 F3d 225.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: For purposes of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), statements of nature made by defendant, or aided and abetted by him, during application and grant process of loans under Direct Endorsement Program were made in connection with matters within United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's jurisdiction, even if made to qualified and participating lenders during pre-approval and authorization process. United States v Reynolds (2005, CA5 Tex) 152 Fed Appx 416.

42. Immigration, naturalization and citizenship

Defendant's participation in false statements made to state agency for purpose of establishing children's citizenship in proceedings before federal agency may factually be held to be matter within jurisdiction of federal agency even though false statements were not made directly to federal agency itself. United States v Montemayor (1983, CA5 Tex) 712 F2d 104, 13 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1575.

Giving of false identification at United States border is punishable under 18 USCS § 1001, since it is both material and within jurisdiction of federal agency. United States v Popow (1987, CA8 Minn) 821 F2d 483, 23 Fed Rules Evid Serv 769.

For purposes of 18 USCS § 1001, statement is material if it has natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing government agency or official; with regard to statements made to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); (1) test is not whether false statement was determinative factor in INS decision but, rather, whether statement has natural tendency to influence INS; and (2) INS views violent crime as "elevating circumstance" in determining whether to devote resources to visa fraud investigation and allegation of forced sex will, therefore, tends to influence government agency by making INS more likely to pursue investigation arising out of allegation. United States v Mitchell (2004, CA8 Ark) 388 F3d 1139.

When alien entered U.S. at California checkpoint by using another person's permanent resident alien card, alien's entry into U.S. was unlawful given that it was federal crime under 18 USCS § 1001(a) to use any false document knowing that it contained any false statement and that 18 USCS § 1028(a)(7) prohibited individual from using another person's identification with intent to violate federal law; alien's argument that his entry, while criminal, was lawful for purposes of adjustment of status under 8 USCS § 1255(a) on ground that he presented himself for inspection and admission and was allowed to enter U.S. lacked merit because § 1255(a) and 8 USCS § 1101(a)(13)(A) required that alien's entry into United States be lawful in order for him to qualify for adjustment of status under 8 USCS § 1255(a). Orozco v Mukasey (2008, CA9) 521 F3d 1068.

18 USC § 1001 did not apply where false information was given to state highway patrolman, even though in matter clearly within jurisdiction of federal immigration authority, since deception had not been practiced directly on federal agency involved; where indictment alleged that defendants willfully and knowingly represented to California State Highway Patrol officers that van was empty, whereas, in truth, as defendants knew, this van contained 49 Mexican aliens illegally in United States, predecessor to 18 USC § 1001 used term "jurisdiction" as synonymous with "power," and therefore statute was inapplicable since deception was not practiced upon federal department or agency, even though it was recognized that representation was made in matter within jurisdiction of Immigration and Naturalization Service of United States Department of Justice. United States v White (1946, DC Cal) 69 F Supp 562.

In prosecution for making false statements as to misrepresenting what aliens wanted and were trying to accomplish, neither verbatim transcript of INS hearings, nor statement to officer with final authority is necessary where whole purpose of application procedure was to establish truth of certain facts on basis of which alien would be allowed or would be denied permission to stay in United States and no one could have reasonably supposed that truth was not essence of application procedure. United States v Endow (1982, ED Pa) 553 F Supp 773, affd (1983, CA3 Pa) 723 F2d 1120, 14 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1424, cert den (1984) 467 US 1251, 82 L Ed 2d 839, 104 S Ct 3533.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Denial of motion for judgment of acquittal was proper in prosecution for violations of 8 USCS § 1326(a) and 18 USCS § 1001 where defendant possessed current, valid passport issued by foreign country and lied to immigration agent concerning location of passport and his possession of it and where evidence showed that several removal orders had previously been entered against defendant and that he was in U.S. without having received prior approval to enter country. United States v Ntreh (2005, CA3 VI) 142 Fed Appx 106.

Unpublished: Defendant's conviction and sentence for uttering counterfeit check, violation of 18 USCS § 513(a), falsely representing himself to be U.S. citizen, in violation of 18 USCS § 911, and making false statement in matter within jurisdiction of U.S. government, violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), were affirmed because (1) district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to quash his waiver of speedy-trial rights, and it fully complied with Speedy Trial Act under 18 USCS § 3161(h)(8)(A); (2) district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, or res judicata because finding by ALJ that he was U.S. citizen, and that he served in U.S. Air Force, did not preclude subsequent related criminal prosecution, and nothing in record established that defendant had previously been prosecuted for any of same offenses, or that he was required to be U.S. citizen to enlist in Air Force; (3) district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on counts charging him with impersonating U.S. citizen and making false statement in matter within government's jurisdiction because it was reasonable for jury to infer from evidence that defendant falsely stated to federal immigration enforcement agent that he was U.S. citizen, and that he was born in U.S.; (4) those two counts were not multiplicitous; and (5) district court did not err in applying 10-level upward adjustment based upon amount of intended loss resulting from defendant's counterfeiting offense under USSG § 2B1.1, cmt., application n. 3(A). United States v Bustamante (2007, CA8 Mo) 2007 US App LEXIS 23119.