Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

43. Internal Revenue Service

False tax forms filed with Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 USCS § 4412 are filed "in any matter within jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Knox (1969) 396 US 77, 24 L Ed 2d 275, 90 S Ct 363, 70-1 USTC P 15925, 27 AFTR 2d 1902.

Statement to internal revenue agent in course of authorized inquiry into correctness of taxpayer's returns is statement made "within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States." Knowles v United States (1955, CA10 Colo) 224 F2d 168, 55-1 USTC P 9481, 47 AFTR 1371.

Statement taken in affidavit form by internal revenue agent investigating charges brought by taxpayer against activities of defendant concerned subject matter within jurisdiction of agency of United States within 18 USC § 1001, where defendant had denied that former revenue agent stated that he was willing to disclose government's case against taxpayer for income tax evasion in effort by defendant and former agent to represent taxpayer in this matter; Internal Revenue Service is part of Treasury Department of United States which, in addition to seeing that all internal revenue taxes are properly collected, is further required to "aid in the prevention, detection, and punishment of any frauds in relation thereto." Brandow v United States (1959, CA9 Cal) 268 F2d 559, 59-2 USTC P 9699, 4 AFTR 2d 5489.

18 USCS § 1001 applies to statements made to Internal Revenue agents, consisting of affirmatively tendering fictitious documents to IRS investigator to preserve defendant's claimed tax deductions. United States v Schmoker (1977, CA9 Nev) 564 F2d 289, 78-1 USTC P 9109, 41 AFTR 2d 399.

False material oral statement made to tax auditor falls within purview of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Fern (1983, CA11 Fla) 696 F2d 1269, 83-1 USTC P 9151, 51 AFTR 2d 819.

Conspirators who devised plan to avoid triggering reporting provisions of federal law requiring banking institution to report to Internal Revenue Service name and address of individual dealing in amounts of cash in excess of $ 10,000 by going to different banks on same day and purchasing cashier's checks in amounts less than $ 10,000 could be convicted under 18 USCS § 1001 for devising scheme to conceal or cover up material facts within jurisdiction of agency of government. United States v Massa (1984, CA8 Mo) 740 F2d 629, 16 Fed Rules Evid Serv 339, cert den (1985) 471 US 1115, 86 L Ed 2d 258, 105 S Ct 2357.

Submission of false affidavits which impaired legitimate investigatory function of IRS violates 18 USCS § 1001 even if misstatements did not disquise any tax obligation. In re Sealed Case (1982, App DC) 219 US App DC 195, 676 F2d 793, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 98647, 82-1 USTC P 9335, 10 Fed Rules Evid Serv 490, 33 FR Serv 2d 1778, 50 AFTR 2d 5637 (criticized in Frontier Ref. v Gorman-Rupp Co. (1998, CA10 Wyo) 136 F3d 695, 39 FR Serv 3d 1236) and (criticized in Bank of Am., N.A. v Terra Nova Ins. Co. (2002, SD NY) 212 FRD 166).

Internal revenue service is "agency" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Braunstein (1978, DC NJ) 474 F Supp 1.

44. Labor Department

False statements made to state division of employment were within jurisdiction of Department of Labor within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, since this and other federal agencies have authority to request information regarding number, identity, and status of claimants to state programs. United States v Facchini (1987, CA9 Or) 832 F2d 1159.

Federal criminal liability was improperly imposed under 18 USCS § 1001 upon claimants to state unemployment insurance program who made misrepresentations on claim for benefits, since Department of Labor involvement in state program was administrative and minimal, where no federal unemployment benefits were received, and there was no direct relation between false statements and any authorized function of Department. United States v Facchini (1989, CA9 Or) 874 F2d 638, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep P 21916 (criticized in United States v Salman (2002, ED Va) 189 F Supp 2d 360).

Department of Labor had jurisdiction over not-for-profit corporation president's false statements, even though he did not physically deliver them to any person or entity but filed them, since 18 USCS § 1001 does not require physical delivery, his purpose was to deceive those who would look at files, and DOL had power to exercise authority over them as they were subject to audit. United States v Frazier (1995, CA10 Utah) 53 F3d 1105, 42 Fed Rules Evid Serv 96 (criticized in United States v Ferrera (1997, CA7 Ill) 107 F3d 537) and (criticized in United States v Maher (1998, CA4 Va) 1998 US App LEXIS 27771) and (criticized in United States v Kinney (2000, CA2 NY) 211 F3d 13).

45.--National Labor Relations Board

Section 9(h) of amended National Labor Relations Act (29 USCS § 159(h)), which requires union officers to file noncommunist affidavits with National Labor Relations Board and makes officer who files false affidavit subject to penalties provided in 18 USCS § 1001, seeks to deter union officers who are communists from filing any affidavits. Leedom v International Union of M., M. & S. W. (1956) 352 US 145, 1 L Ed 2d 201, 77 S Ct 154, 39 BNA LRRM 2146, 31 CCH LC P 70349.

False statement denying affiliation with Communist Party in affidavit filed with NLRB, pursuant to explicit authority of former § 9(h) of Taft-Hartley Act, is in "matter within the jurisdiction" of NLRB within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, where constitutionality of § 9(h) was upheld by United States Supreme Court only short time before filing of affidavit, irrespective of whether that Supreme Court decision would be reaffirmed today. 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.

Actual filing of false non-Communist affidavit with National Labor Relations Board is necessary to constitute crime denounced by 18 USCS § 1001, and constructive filing by delivery to post office is not enough. United States v Valenti (1953, CA3 NJ) 207 F2d 242, 32 BNA LRRM 2655, 24 CCH LC P 67827.

Materiality of non-Communist affidavit is not dependent upon use of national labor relations board facilities by union; test is not use but right to use. Sells v United States (1958, CA10 Colo) 262 F2d 815, 43 BNA LRRM 2476, 36 CCH LC P 65189, cert den (1959) 360 US 913, 3 L Ed 2d 1262, 79 S Ct 1298.

Unsworn responses of defendant, a union's international vice-president, to questions propounded by a NLRB hearing officer at fact-finding hearing constituted a "statement" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Krause (1975, CA5 Fla) 507 F2d 113, 88 BNA LRRM 2856.

46. Military authorities

Although not stating offense of forgery, specification that alleged that accused, with intent to defraud, made certain false signatures to certain USAFE Special Activities Permit and Ration Card, which instrument, if genuine, would apparently operate to legal prejudice of another, would sufficiently state violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Smart (1956, US) 23 CMR 454.

Exclusion board established under executive order authorizing military commanders to designate certain areas from which certain persons could be excluded had at least colorable authority so that making of false or fraudulent statements or misrepresentations before it could be prosecuted. United States v Meyer (1944, CA2 NY) 140 F2d 652.

Military post exchange, although created by regulations, is arm of the United States and agency within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. Brethauer v United States (1964, CA8 Mo) 333 F2d 302.

Navy has legitimate interest in maintaining security of installations; to protect that interest, security personnel may require visitor to identify himself whether or not there are indications he has committed criminal offense. United States v Camacho (1974, CA9 Guam) 506 F2d 594.

Defendant, who, in order to obtain employment with corporation under contract with United States to develop and manufacture classified military and naval arms, falsely stated in "Department of Defense Personnel Questionnaire" that had never been arrested, and which questionnaire was, pursuant to government regulations, presented to naval department by employer, was properly convicted under 18 USCS § 1001, as against defendant's contention that he was employed by the corporation and questionnaire presented to it. United States v Giarraputo (1956, DC NY) 140 F Supp 831.

Right of retired member of Marine Corps to submit claim for travel performed by him and his dependents; incident to his selection of home following his transfer to Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, is privilege directly related to active service, even though it accrues only incident to termination of active service; and, therefore, conviction of member under 18 USCS § 1001 of falsifying vouchers for such travel is conviction of felony committed in exercise of member's privileges as officer or employee of United States. (1960) 40 Op Comp Gen 176.

47. Postal Service

18 USCS § 1001 applies to Postal Service and thus was applicable in prosecution of defendant who had submitted false sick leave request while employed as mail clerk. United States v Estus (1976, CA8 Ark) 544 F2d 934.

18 USCS § 1001 does not require that false statement be made for fraudulent purpose; thus, government was not required to prove that defendant opened post office boxes under names other than her own with intent to defraud others by virtue of her mail fraud scheme involving stealing merchandise from retail stores, then returning it and having refund checks mailed to her. United States v McGauley (2002, CA1 Mass) 279 F3d 62, 58 Fed Rules Evid Serv 922.

False statement to Post Office inspectors, where defendant was charged with falsely stating to Post Office inspectors amount of funds he had received on behalf of Infantile Paralysis Foundation and with falsely stating that he had turned over some of funds he had received to another officer of foundation, were made in matter within jurisdiction of Post Office Department, which is empowered to investigate commission of federal offenses on Post Office property, whether such acts amounted to mail fraud or not. United States v Beall (1954, DC Cal) 126 F Supp 363.

48. Small Business Administration

In prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 of defendant who had instructed applicants for Small Business Administration loans to answer item in application incompletely defendant would be considered to have affirmatively caused applicants to misrepresent that complete disclosure had been made, and thus did indeed make "false" statements within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Rapoport (1976, CA2 NY) 545 F2d 802, 1 Fed Rules Evid Serv 420, cert den (1977) 430 US 931, 51 L Ed 2d 775, 97 S Ct 1551.

Presenting false information to Small Business Administration, or failing to provide complete information, with intent that SBA will act on misrepresentations and issue reimbursement checks to sureties is presentation of false, material information to federal agency in violation of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Dick (1984, CA7 Ill) 744 F2d 546.

Contractor's statements to insurer which had given performance bond on hospital construction project were submitted in matter "within jurisdiction" of federal agency, within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, where (1) statements were submitted for purpose of obtaining payment on construction project from insurer, (2) performance bond was guaranteed by Small Business Administration, (3) Small Business Administration was obligated to reimburse insurer for 90 percent of cost of contract with defendant to complete project, (4) amount of reimbursement was affected by defendant's defrauding insurer, and (5) Small Business Administration retained authority to supervise bond guarantee program. United States v Brack (1984, CA7 Ill) 747 F2d 1142, cert den (1985) 469 US 1216, 84 L Ed 2d 339, 105 S Ct 1193.

49. State agencies

Statement made to Aid to Families of Dependent Children program operated by State of Michigan Department of Social Services was part of fraud within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Lewis (1978, CA6 Mich) 587 F2d 854.

18 USCS § 1001 is proper vehicle for prosecuting individuals who make false statements on applications for state unemployment benefits, since state department of labor receives federal funds, operates under federal law, and provides for benefits to unemployed workers on interstate basis. United States v Herring (1990, CA11 Ala) 916 F2d 1543, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep P 21945, cert den (1991) 500 US 946, 114 L Ed 2d 488, 111 S Ct 2248, 91 Daily Journal DAR 6141 and (criticized in United States v Holmes (1997, CA6 Mich) 111 F3d 463, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep P 22181, 46 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1455, 1997 FED App 135P).

Where, as here, federal government neither funded fraudulently-obtained state benefit payments nor had any authority to act upon discovering that state program has been defrauded, false statements made to state agency could not be said to come "within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States." United States v Holmes (1997, CA6 Mich) 111 F3d 463, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep P 22181, 46 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1455, 1997 FED App 135P (criticized in United States v Salman (2002, ED Va) 189 F Supp 2d 360).

18 USCS § 1001 did not cover deception of state police officer or any state agency or of individual person in connection with administration or enforcement of any of laws of government of United States. United States v White (1946, DC Cal) 69 F Supp 562.

Although statement was physically submitted to state agency, where structure of federal law on Medicaid contemplated that states would have programs and would be reimbursed by federal funds, statement was within jurisdiction of federal agency. United States v Braunstein (1978, DC NJ) 474 F Supp 1.

50. United States Attorney

Defendant could be prosecuted under 18 USCS § 1001 for making false statements to Assistant United States Attorney with respect to matters within jurisdiction of United States Attorney's Office. New York v Sokol (In re Sokol) (1997, CA2) 108 F3d 477, reported in full (1997, CA2 NY) 1997 US App LEXIS 6291.

Affirmative false statement by defendant to Assistant United States Attorney to induce that office to take action against third person involved governmental action within jurisdiction of office of United States Attorney. United States v Van Valkenburg (1958, DC Alaska) 17 Alaska 450, 157 F Supp 599.

Defendant violated 18 USC § 1001 when he stated to assistant United States Attorney that certain person had stolen two checks from him and that by means of forgery had cashed same, knowing at time he made this statement that it was untrue; because indictment alleged affirmative false statement to assistant United States Attorney to induce his office to take action against third person, such governmental action being clearly within jurisdiction of office of United States Attorney, this was matter within jurisdiction of Department of Justice. United States v Van Valkenburg (1958, DC Alaska) 17 Alaska 450, 157 F Supp 599.

51. Veteran's Administration

Defendant was properly convicted under 18 USCS § 1001 where cost analysis submitted by him to Veterans' Administration differed materially from cost as shown on his books after such books had been adjusted by government to reflect his costs accurately. Stevens v United States (1953, CA6 Tenn) 206 F2d 64.

Making and presentation of false affidavits by committee for incompetent veterans were not within jurisdiction of veterans' administration as used in 18 USCS § 1001, suit to compel an accounting and settlement of accounts being exclusively within jurisdiction of state court. United States v Crittenden (1938, DC NY) 24 F Supp 84.

Presentation of fraudulent accounts by attorney for veteran's guardian to veterans' administration was matter within jurisdiction of veterans' administration and was offense punishable under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Sanders (1941, DC Tex) 42 F Supp 436.

Defendant was properly tried and convicted under 18 USCS § 1001 when evidence showed that defendant and not another had willfully and knowingly caused lending institution to submit to veterans administration application for home loan guaranty or insurance containing false income statements regarding such other, even though veterans administration rejected application for another reason and was not deceived by false statements. United States v Quirk (1958, DC Pa) 167 F Supp 462, affd (1959, CA3 Pa) 266 F2d 26.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Court granted counsel's motions to withdraw and dismissed both appeals where disputing sufficiency of evidence would have been frivolous given overwhelming evidence produced at trial that defendant husband and wife lied to Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security Administration about being wheelchair-bound. United States v Rennicke (2005, CA7 Ill) 132 Fed Appx 652.

52. Wartime agencies

War assets administration being agency of United States, false representations, made by veteran in his application to purchase surplus trucks, pertained to matters within its jurisdiction. Todorow v United States (1949, CA9 Cal) 173 F2d 439, cert den (1949) 337 US 925, 93 L Ed 1733, 69 S Ct 1169.

During war-time suspension of competitive bid requirements, but while local policy required air force civilian contracting officer to secure informal quotations from possible suppliers, fictitious entries of supposed quotations on reverse side of mimeographed purchase memoranda, support conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001. Wagner v United States (1959, CA5 Fla) 263 F2d 877.

Alleged issuance of false invoices or bills concerning sales within jurisdiction of Office of Price Administration showed violation. United States v Ganz (1942, DC Mass) 48 F Supp 323.

Applicant for sugar rationing book willfully making false statement that he had no sugar on hand was guilty of violation of predecessor of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Wright (1943, DC Del) 48 F Supp 687.

53. Miscellaneous

Defendant, employed by employer seeking access to classified material from Atomic Energy Commission, who knowingly made false statements on such commission's security questionnaire, cannot escape conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by claiming that he had not defrauded United States of financial or proprietary interest, or that his employer and not defendant had submitted questionnaire, or that defendant did not have training required for him to have any access to classified atomic information. Pitts v United States (1959, CA9 Cal) 263 F2d 353, cert den (1959) 360 US 935, 3 L Ed 2d 1547, 79 S Ct 1457, reh den (1959) 361 US 857, 4 L Ed 2d 97, 80 S Ct 47.

Business activities of corporation wholly owned by savings association is matter within jurisdiction of Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Cartwright (1980, CA5 Tex) 632 F2d 1290.

Jurisdiction existed within Food and Drug Administration to regulate "overbleeding" by plasmapheresis centers, notwithstanding that agency did not promulgate final regulation concerning matter until after events constituting mislabeling of blood shipments occurred. United States v Diaz (1982, CA11 Fla) 690 F2d 1352.

Statements made on forms filed with Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) are matters "within jurisdiction" of SEC, since Exchange Act provides statutory basis for SEC's request for information, and SEC has authority to regulate disclosure required under securities law; government may prosecute making false statements on forms filed with SEC under either 18 USCS § 1001 or more specific securities law provisions, even though less proof is required under § 1001, since general rule that criminal statutes may overlap controls. United States v Bilzerian (1991, CA2 NY) 926 F2d 1285, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 95701, 31 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1185, cert den (1991) 502 US 813, 116 L Ed 2d 39, 112 S Ct 63 and (criticized in In re Grand Jury Proceedings October 12, 1995 (1996, CA6 Ohio) 78 F3d 251, 1996 FED App 90P).

False statements made to United States Probation Office were matters within jurisdiction of department or agency of United States within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, since § 1001 is statute of general applicability which should be given unrestricted interpretation, and duties of probation officer in supervising probationer were clearly administrative, not adjudicative, in nature. United States v Inserra (1994, CA2 NY) 34 F3d 83, 41 Fed Rules Evid Serv 40.

Even if Drug Enforcement Administration failed to comply with its own internal procedures requiring its agents to obtain authorization to use informant with prior felony convictions, informant's false reports which led to groundless federal investigations were matters within agency jurisdiction, since "jurisdiction" should not be given narrow or technical meaning. United States v Edmonds (1996, CA9 Cal) 103 F3d 822, 96 CDOS 9288, 96 Daily Journal DAR 15306.

False statements that were made by defendants concerned their compliance with terms of their contract with contractor, contract over which Department of Transportation neither had nor exercised any supervisory power; consequently, false statements concerned matter that was outside jurisdiction of federal government. United States v Blankenship (2004, CA11 Fla) 382 F3d 1110, 17 FLW Fed C 953.

False statements that were made by defendants concerned their compliance with terms of their contract with contractor, contract over which Department of Transportation neither had nor exercised any supervisory power; consequently, false statements concerned matter that was outside jurisdiction of federal government. United States v Blankenship (2004, CA11 Fla) 382 F3d 1110, 17 FLW Fed C 953.

Section 104.8 of Federal Election Commission (FEC) adequately put defendant on notice that reporting name of signer of check as donor where there was evidence to contrary and participating in conduit transaction by signing check himself or conspiring with another to do so would constitute "causing" false statement to be made to FEC in violation of 18 USCS §§ 2(b), 1001. United States v Kanchanalak (1999, App DC) 338 US App DC 200, 192 F3d 1037.

Submission of fraudulent documents to Governor of Virgin Islands to justify open market purchase of equipment involves matters within jurisdiction of US Department of Interior where such submission of fraudulent document interferes with lawful functions of US government controller, whose duties include accounting for and auditing territorial revenues. United States v Canel (1982, DC VI) 569 F Supp 926, affd (1983, CA3 VI) 708 F2d 894, cert den (1983) 464 US 852, 78 L Ed 2d 151, 104 S Ct 165, 104 S Ct 166.

Defendant's false statement to agent of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is matter within "jurisdiction" of bureau for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001 prohibition of knowingly making false statement to government agency concerning matter within jurisdiction, because defendant's statements concerning purchase of shotgun by her rather than former husband, convicted felon, clearly fall within "any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency" where ATF is charged with enforcement and administration of Gun Control Act. United States v Barrett (1986, DC Vt) 639 F Supp 1342.

Count charging CIA officer with making false statements to Tower Commission in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 need not be dismissed, where officer contends that unless Congress designates entity as "agency," "commission," or "board," false statements made to that entity do not violate § 1001, because argument is specious since (1) 18 USCS § 6 defines "agency" as "any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, or bureau" of U.S., (2) nothing in law requires formal act of Congress to create "commission" for purposes of § 1001, and (3) Tower Commission--officially established as "Special Review Board to review activities of National Security Council"--must be considered "agency" under 18 USCS §§ 6 and 1001. United States v Clarridge (1992, DC Dist Col) 811 F Supp 697 (criticized in United States v Watt (1995, DC Dist Col) 911 F Supp 538).