Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Where defendant, upon boarding flight to Europe with his wife, falsely stated to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents that his wife was carrying $ 6,500 and he had only $ 356, jury rationally concluded that his false statements pertained to activity within jurisdiction of DHS, required element to support conviction for violating 18 USCS § 1001, because DHS' jurisdiction included enforcing federal-currency-reporting requirements. United States v Odunze (2008, CA6 Tenn) 2008 FED App 278N.

Unpublished: Former employee stated claim that he could have faced criminal liability pursuant to 18 USCS § 1001 had he knowingly falsified his audit report at his former employer's direction, as alleged, because (1) Risk Management Program (RMP) indicated that employer was to provide regular reports to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, thus, employee's audit report was within jurisdiction of FDA for purposes of § 1001; (2) employee's audit report could influence FDA as it analyzed whether employer was in compliance with its RMP, which was created in order to obtain FDA approval of drug and to ensure safe use of drug; and (3) it was clear that discovery was required to flesh out RMP requirements and manner of reporting to FDA; thus, employee stated claim against employer for wrongful discharge pursuant to Pennsylvania's commit crime exception to at-will employment that was sufficient to withstand Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, employee's motion for leave to amend that claim was granted, and employer's and co-workers' motion to dismiss that claim was denied. Brennan v Cephalon, Inc. (2005, DC NJ) 2005 US Dist LEXIS 25170.

3.Particular Matters and Transactions 54. Answers to inquiries, questionnaires and forms

18 USCS § 1001 was not intended to embrace statements given in response to inquiries initiated by federal agency or department, except, perhaps, where such statement would substantially impair basic functions entrusted by law to that agency. United States v Bedore (1972, CA9 Wash) 455 F2d 1109.

18 USCS § 1001 does not apply to mere answers, including untruthful ones, to investigators' questions. United States v Johnson (1976, CA5 Ga) 530 F2d 52, 76-1 USTC P 9398, 37 AFTR 2d 1242, cert den (1976) 429 US 833, 50 L Ed 2d 97, 97 S Ct 96.

Person who has duty to supply information on government form may be guilty of violating 18 USCS § 1001 if he in fact has relevant information but fills in letters N/A or inserts nothing in blank space provided for his answers. United States v Mattox (1982, CA5 Tex) 689 F2d 531.

55.--Particular cases

Party is guilty of making false statement in violation of 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 1921 where party is receiving compensation from government agency as result of death of first husband when in fact party has entered into common-law marriage with second husband and party subsequently answered "no" to questionnaire concerning remarriage. United States v Seay (1983, CA4 SC) 718 F2d 1279, cert den (1984) 467 US 1226, 81 L Ed 2d 873, 104 S Ct 2677.

18 USCS § 1001, by itself, requires person receiving disability payments truthfully to disclose information concerning his or her employment status and earnings to government, thus government was not required to show that defendant had independent statutory duty to answer 2 questions contained in eligibility questionnaires. United States v De Rosa (1986, CA9 Cal) 783 F2d 1401, cert den (1986) 477 US 908, 91 L Ed 2d 571, 106 S Ct 3282.

Questions concerning convictions in form entitled "Medical History" on application for airman medical certificate were so ambiguous that, as matter of fundamental fairness, conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 was improper, where questions were buried in list purportedly concerned with medical conditions. United States v Manapat (1991, CA11 Fla) 928 F2d 1097.

Defendant's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 for making false statements on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) medical form was affirmed because: (1) FAA form, and questions at issue, dealt exclusively with applicant's medical history, and privacy statement and detailed set of instructions attached to form explicitly stated that purpose of form was to establish applicant's physical fitness to fly, so defendant failed to demonstrate that questions he answered falsely were fundamentally ambiguous; (2) there was nothing inappropriate or vindictive about California Department of Insurance's referral of potential violations of federal law to federal authorities; and (3) while FAA was competent to determine whether applicant has made false statements on certificate form, it was squarely within province of Department of Justice to prosecute felonies of perjury and false statements, so district court properly proceeded with defendant's prosecution. United States v Culliton (2003, CA9 Cal) 328 F3d 1074, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 4724, cert den (2004) 540 US 1111, 157 L Ed 2d 900, 124 S Ct 1087.

Denial of judgment of acquittal motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for convictions for making false statements to FAA in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was affirmed because form was not fundamentally ambiguous; defendant was required to disclose any and all operating vehicle under influence of alcohol (OUI) convictions, defendant knew that his answer was false and that his other two OUI convictions had to have been included on form, and government proved, and rational jury found beyond reasonable doubt, that only sensible reading of form demanded that defendant report his entire OUI history. United States v Hatch (2006, CA1 Mass) 434 F3d 1.

Defendant was properly convicted of making false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) when he applied to work as baggage and passenger screener for Transportation Security Administration and said that he had never left job under unfavorable circumstances or had clearance authorization suspended; defendant had been discharged from U.S. Air Force because of his verbal support of Osama bin Laden and September 11, 2001 attacks and his access to classified information had been terminated at that time, and it was for jury to decide whether defendant's interpretation of questions was reasonable. United States v Ahmed (2006, CA6 Mich) 472 F3d 427, 2006 FED App 475P.

Failure of government employee to identify involvement in group automobile insurance venture when completing Confidential Statement of Employment and Financial Interest form required by HUD subjects him to prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 since insurance venture is "business enterprise" subject to disclosure requirement. United States v Muntain (1979, App DC) 198 US App DC 22, 610 F2d 964.

Violation of Ethics in Government Act (Public Law No. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824) by congressman who omits financial transactions required to be disclosed in financial disclosure statements, is subject to criminal penalties of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Hansen (1985, App DC) 249 US App DC 22, 772 F2d 940, cert den (1986) 475 US 1045, 89 L Ed 2d 571, 106 S Ct 1262, post-conviction relief gr, remanded (1995, CA9 Idaho) 1995 US App LEXIS 27043, habeas corpus den, request den, request gr (1995, DC Dist Col) 906 F Supp 688 and (criticized in United States v McGuire (1996, CA5 Miss) 96-1 USTC P 50163) and (criticized in United States v Oakar (1997, App DC) 324 US App DC 104, 111 F3d 146).

18 USCS § 1001 does not cover unsworn, oral, false exculpatory responses to questions posed by federal investigators; therefore, defendant was not guilty of violation of § 1001 where she denied knowing other defendant who subsequently turned out to be her husband. United States v Thevis (1979, DC Conn) 469 F Supp 490, affd without op (1979, CA2 Conn) 614 F2d 1293, cert den (1980) 446 US 908, 64 L Ed 2d 260, 100 S Ct 1834.

Attorney General's investigation of National Security Council aide's activities was sufficiently formal under 18 USCS § 1001, in prosecution for aide's alleged obstruction of presidential investigation, where aide was summoned by Attorney General personally to answer questions about well-publicized matter, because investigation was conducted in atmosphere of gravity such that reasonable person would know legal consequences could result from obstruction. United States v North (1988, DC Dist Col) 708 F Supp 364.

Failure of county sheriff to furnish United States Army with information in his files concerning army enlistee's arrest and adjudication as youthful offender did not violate 18 USCS § 1001. Doe v County of Westchester (1974, 2d Dept) 45 App Div 2d 308, 358 NYS2d 471.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of knowingly and willfully making false statement in matter within jurisdiction of federal agency where (1) Merchant Mariner's Document that asked whether defendant had ever been convicted by any court defined conviction to include cases of deferred adjudication, (2) defendant's Florida burglary case thus constituted conviction, (3) defendant's statement that he had not been convicted was demonstrably false, and (4) he stated in writing that he had lied on form because he did not want to lose his job. United States v Boevink (2005, CA9 Wash) 122 Fed Appx 307.

56. Currency transaction reports

18 USCS § 1001 is violated when individual willfully and knowingly causes financial institution not to "accurately" report currency transactions that it has duty to report and would report accurately if it knew about transaction; person who conspires to transmit false information to financial institution, with knowledge that false information will passed on to government, violates 18 USCS § 371, 18 USCS § 1001, and 18 USCS § 2. United States v Puerto (1984, CA11 Fla) 730 F2d 627, cert den (1984) 469 US 847, 83 L Ed 2d 98, 105 S Ct 162.

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.

Conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 was proper where defendant, who met definition of financial institution, had duty to file CTR's which he failed to do. United States v Hernando Ospina (1986, CA11 Fla) 798 F2d 1570, 21 Fed Rules Evid Serv 878.

Defendant has violated 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 18 USCS § 2, where he purposefully structured banking transactions of over $ 10,000 so as to avoid bank's filing of Currency Transaction Reports (CTR's), despite fact that he had no duty to disclose and therefore could not ordinarily be guilty of concealment of material fact, since by operation of 18 USCS § 2, defendant is liable as principle for willfully causing innocent bank to fail to file CTR. United States v Richeson (1987, CA4 Md) 825 F2d 17.

Conspiracy to cause bank to fail to file currency transaction reports is conspiracy to defraud United States in violation of 18 USCS §§ 371 and 1001. United States v Lafaurie (1987, CA11 Fla) 833 F2d 1468, cert den (1988) 486 US 1032, 100 L Ed 2d 602, 108 S Ct 2015.

Indictment charging bank president with intentionally structuring transactions in order to avoid statutory filing requirements of 31 USCS §§ 5313 and 5322 and in violation of 18 USCS §§ 2, 371 and 1001, charging that aggregate of individual transfers of currency he made in one day exceeded $ 10,000, sufficiently alleged facts which constituted crime against United States, since bank was alleged to be aware of duty to report and efforts to evade duty, and president, who controlled bank, was given fair warning that his behavior violated statute. United States v Polychron (1988, CA8 Ark) 841 F2d 833, reh, en banc, den (1988, CA8) 1988 US App LEXIS 7474 and cert den (1988) 488 US 851, 102 L Ed 2d 107, 109 S Ct 135.

Bank customers could not be convicted of scheme to conceal information from Treasury Department by structuring transactions to cause bank to fail to file Current Transaction Reports in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 and 31 USCS § 5311, prior to amendment, since 31 USCS § 5311 failed to give customers fair notice that such structuring was criminal. United States v Mastronardo (1988, CA3 Pa) 849 F2d 799.

Defendant violated 18 USCS § 1001 by application of 18 USCS § 2, where he as customer caused bank to fail to file CTR's, despite fact that his conduct was open and neither fraudulent nor deceptive. United States v Meros (1989, CA11 Fla) 866 F2d 1304, cert den (1989) 493 US 932, 107 L Ed 2d 312, 110 S Ct 322.

Indictment charged offense under 18 USCS §§ 1001, 1002, where it alleged that attorney deposited funds for client, structuring deposits to thwart CTR filing requirements by failing to disclose real party in interest, since bank was required by law to report real party in interest. United States v Belcher (1991, CA11 Fla) 927 F2d 1182, cert den (1991) 502 US 856, 116 L Ed 2d 133, 112 S Ct 170.

Depositor who clearly intended to avoid bank's $ 10,000 threshold reporting requirement under 31 USCS § 5313 by depositing $ 9,800 into two accounts on one day and $ 200 the next cannot be liable under 18 USCS § 2(b) and 18 USCS § 1001 for thereby causing bank innocently to violate 31 USCS § 5313 and related regulatory reporting requirement, since only Financial institutions are subject to reporting requirement under statute and regulation. United States v Perlmutter (1986, SD NY) 636 F Supp 219.

57. Negotiations with government

Predecessor of 18 USCS § 1001 was intended to apply to situations involving negotiations with government, and was not limited to actual claims against government. Spivey v United States (1940, CA5 Ala) 109 F2d 181, cert den (1940) 310 US 631, 84 L Ed 1401, 60 S Ct 1079.

Submission to National Aeronautics and Space Administration for reimbursement on change order work may constitute false statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 and may constitute false claim in violation of 18 USCS § 287 notwithstanding claim that submission is merely estimate presented to government as opening position in process of negotiating amount to be paid. United States v White (1985, CA11 Fla) 765 F2d 1469, 33 CCF P 73741.

Where, as here, false statements were made to department or agency of executive branch of government in course of settlement negotiations, and where these statements were not presented to federal court, such statements were made with respect to matter within jurisdiction of any department or agency of United States as that phrase was used in 18 USCS § 1001, notwithstanding fact that matter might also be within jurisdiction of federal court. New York v Sokol (In re Sokol) (1997, CA2) 108 F3d 477, reported in full (1997, CA2 NY) 1997 US App LEXIS 6291.

18 USCS § 1001 applied to statements made and documents supplied during bargaining between contractor and United States. United States v Coastal Contracting & Engineering Co. (1959, DC Md) 174 F Supp 474.

58. Reports of federal employees

Where visa clerk in customs department pursuant to conspiracy passed false export statement, false statement "was made or caused to be made" by visa clerk. 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.

18 USCS § 1001 includes reports of Internal Revenue agents who "knowingly and willfully" falsify them and is consistent with § 7214(a)(7) of title 26, concerning agents who make a "fraudulent" entry, as opposed to making an innocent false statement. United States v Eisenmann (1968, CA2 NY) 396 F2d 565.

59. Miscellaneous

The filing of a false non-Communist affidavit to comply with former § 159(h) of Title 29 was a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States within 18 USCS § 1001 even though there was some question about the constitutionality of such § 159(h). 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.

18 USCS § 1001 did not extend to false oath in application for civil service examination. United States ex rel. Starr v Mulligan (1932, CA2 NY) 59 F2d 200.

Defendant violated 18 USCS § 1001 where she deliberately gave wrong address to doctor in securing a drug prescription, which address was recorded by doctor. Walker v United States (1951, CA10 Okla) 192 F2d 47.

Dismissal of indictment charging violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was proper where certificates of deposit at issue did not meet negotiability requirements set forth by Puerto Rico's Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act. United States v Gonzalez Medina (1986, CA1 Puerto Rico) 797 F2d 1109.

Blood center employee could be found guilty of violating 18 USCS § 1001, where employee had another person take proficiency test required by government agency, because test fell within agency's jurisdiction, as required for conviction, as it was important way of assuring quality of persons handling blood at centers. United States v Maniago (1997, SD NY) 987 F Supp 234.

Motion for new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 was denied where defendants failed to point to anything that should have alerted prosecutors that witness was lying about participation in testing of worksheet; jury did not rely on such testimony when it convicted defendants of making false statements, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, and of conspiracy and obstruction of agency proceeding, in violation of 18 USCS § 1505, where, one day before corporation in which defendant client held stock made official announcement, defendant stockbroker's assistant had notified defendant client that corporation had been denied federal approval of its cancer-fighting drug. United States v Stewart (2004, SD NY) 323 F Supp 2d 606, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 92861.

C.State of Mind 60. Generally

It is not necessary that it be at least reasonably foreseeable that defendant be involved in matter within jurisdiction of federal agency, since no mental state is required with respect to federal involvement in order to establish violation of 18 USCS § 1001, under plain meaning of statute. United States v Bakhtiari (1990, CA2 NY) 913 F2d 1053, cert den (1991) 499 US 924, 113 L Ed 2d 252, 111 S Ct 1319 and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Gelzer (1995, CA2 NY) 50 F3d 1133, 41 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1038).

There is no culpability standard applicable with regard to jurisdictional element of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Leo (1991, CA3 Pa) 941 F2d 181, 37 CCF P 76177, 34 Fed Rules Evid Serv 715.

In prosecution of high-level manager for signing falsely-dated bill of lading for hazardous waste shipment under 18 USCS § 1001, fact that document was internal and not on preprinted government form, from which agency jurisdiction could be inferred, was irrelevant, since there is no mental state required for jurisdictional element under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Heuer (1993, CA9 Nev) 4 F3d 723, 93 CDOS 6519, 93 Daily Journal DAR 11177, 23 ELR 21357, cert den (1994) 510 US 1164, 127 L Ed 2d 540, 114 S Ct 1190.

61. Intent, knowledge and willfulness

Proof of actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction is not required to establish violation of 18 USCS § 1001; phrase "knowingly and willfully" in § 1001 modifies only making of "false, fictitious or fraudulent statements," and not predicate circumstance that such statements be made in matter within jurisdiction of federal agency. United States v Yermian (1984) 468 US 63, 82 L Ed 2d 53, 104 S Ct 2936.

Under 18 USCS § 1001, willful means no more than that person charged with duty know what he is doing--he need not know that he is breaking the law; hence, osteopath, charged with dispensation of narcotics was performing willful act when he dispensed same knowing that the narcotics were not being given for medical treatment and despite fact that he thought he had legal right to so prescribe. McBride v United States (1955, CA5 Tex) 225 F2d 249, 47 AFTR 1835, cert den (1956) 350 US 934, 100 L Ed 816, 76 S Ct 306.

As used in 18 USCS § 1001, "knowingly" requires only that defendant acted with knowledge, and "willfully" means defendant acted deliberately and with knowledge. 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.

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 requires proof that defendant had specific intent to make false or fraudulent statement, and misrepresentation must have been made deliberately, knowingly, and willfully, or at least with reckless disregard of truth and with conscious purpose to avoid learning truth. United States v Evans (1977, CA5 Fla) 559 F2d 244, reh den (1977, CA5 Fla) 562 F2d 1257 and reh den (1977, CA5 Fla) 565 F2d 1215 and cert den (1978) 434 US 1015, 54 L Ed 2d 759, 98 S Ct 731 and cert den (1978) 435 US 945, 55 L Ed 2d 542, 98 S Ct 1528.

Since purpose of 18 USCS § 1001 is to protect government against those who would cheat or mislead it in administration of its programs, charge that includes specific intent to deceive along with other elements, namely statement, falsity, materiality, and agency jurisdiction, comports with § 1001; § 1001 does not require that government prove specific intent to defraud. United States v Godwin (1978, CA5 Ga) 566 F2d 975.

Intent element of 18 USCS § 1001 precludes conviction for honest misinterpretation of government forms; not only was government's certification form which defendant signed not so vague on its face as to violate due process, but also jury was properly not impressed by defendant's argument that she had made understandable mistake in interpreting it. United States v Weatherspoon (1978, CA7 Ill) 581 F2d 595 (criticized in Truck Ins. Exch. v Kafka (1995, ND Ill) RICO Bus Disp Guide (CCH) P 8873).

18 USCS § 1001 does not require specific proof that person committing fraud did so with knowledge that fraudulent statement would affect federal funds; although matter must be within jurisdiction of federal government, knowledge of federal involvement is not necessary element of offense. United States v Lewis (1978, CA6 Mich) 587 F2d 854.

Defendant need not know of federal involvement in order to be convicted under 18 USCS § 1001. 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.

18 USCS § 1001 requires that statements be made with intent to deceive, designed to induce belief in falsity or to mislead, but not intent to defraud. United States v Lichenstein (1980, CA5 Ga) 610 F2d 1272, cert den (1980) 447 US 907, 64 L Ed 2d 856, 100 S Ct 2991.

Knowing and willful intent requirement of 18 USCS § 1001 is satisfied if defendant knows that misrepresentations to and concealment from government agency is necessary in order for scheme to succeed. United States v Beck (1980, CA7 Ill) 615 F2d 441.

Defendant's knowledge of federal involvement is not essential element of conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 when false statements are made to organization which receives federal funds but which is not itself federal agency. United States v Baker (1980, CA5 Tex) 626 F2d 512 (criticized in United States v Blankenship (2004, CA11 Fla) 382 F3d 1110, 17 FLW Fed C 953).

Congress defined crime covered by 18 USCS § 1001(a) to punish defendants who act knowingly and willfully; it is this mental state, not amorphous "specific intent," that government is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt. United States v Starnes (2009, CA3 VI) 583 F3d 196.

To establish knowing and willful conduct in making of false statement under 18 USCS § 1001, government must show that defendant acted deliberately and with knowledge that representation was false: government must prove not only that statement was false, but that accused knew it to be false; but that showing, while necessary one, may not always be sufficient to satisfy § 1001's "knowingly and willfully" requirement; thus, government is required to show that misrepresentation was not made innocently or inadvertently. United States v Starnes (2009, CA3 VI) 583 F3d 196.

To extent it is argued that government is required to prove that defendant actually knew of 18 USCS § 1001(a), Third Circuit rejects that argument. United States v Starnes (2009, CA3 VI) 583 F3d 196.

Natural reading of 18 USCS §§ 2(b) and 1001 is this: government may show mens rea simply by proof (1) that defendant knew that statements to be made were false and (2) that defendant intentionally caused such statements to be made by another. United States v Hsia (1999, App DC) 336 US App DC 91, 176 F3d 517, cert den (2000) 528 US 1136, 145 L Ed 2d 929, 120 S Ct 978.

Presence of seller at meeting where purchaser signed false certificate, stating that price paid for property was not in excess of appraised value of property, did not make him guilty of filing false claim, if evidence failed to show he knew about requirement. United States v Mignon (1952, DC Pa) 103 F Supp 20.

In prosecution for violations of 18 USCS § 1001, defendant should only be convicted if evidence shows deliberate course of conduct with intent to violate law and not where there is mistake, inadvertence or lack of guilty knowledge. United States v Schreiber (1978, WD Pa) 449 F Supp 856, affd (1979, CA3 Pa) 599 F2d 534, cert den (1979) 444 US 843, 62 L Ed 2d 56, 100 S Ct 86.

Fact that defendants were advised of governmental requirements and their deliberate answers were designed to avoid compliance with that requirement disposes of contention that their statements were not knowingly and willfully false within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Cutaia (1981, ED NY) 511 F Supp 619.

Violation of 18 USCS § 1001 requires both knowledge and willfulness. State ex rel. Kelly v Moore (1973) 156 W Va 780, 197 SE2d 106, app dismd (1974) 414 US 1118, 38 L Ed 2d 746, 94 S Ct 853.