18 U.S.C. § 1002
Possession of false papers to defraud United States
Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: United States v. Seth Murdock, 398 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Seth Murdock, 398 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2005). “Defendant, Seth Murdock (“Murdock”), appeals his sentence of twenty-seven months imprisonment, imposed by the district court following his conviction by guilty plea of causing another to possess false documents with intent to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. James Vincent Wells, 163 F.3d 889 (4th Cir. 1998). “As the indictment had then read, Wells was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1002 with using a counterfeit document to defraud the government “for the purpose of enabling himself to obtain from the Internal Revenue ServiceThe statute actually reads “for the purpose of enabling another…”
United States v. Emil F. Wiley, 979 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1992). “§ 472 , possessing counterfeit documents with intent to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1002 , and conspiracy to engage in these offenses, 18 U.”
Resendez v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 283 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “§ 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 1002 , id. at 6 , which provide criminal sanctions upon conviction for conspiracy against rights and possession of false papers to defraud the United States, respectively.”
United States v. Latroy D. Ray, Johnny Lee May, & Boyd McChristion, 828 F.2d 399 (7th Cir. 1987). “Defendant McChristion was named in five counts of the superseding indictment, charged with crimes including conspiracy, mail fraud, and possession of altered money orders (the latter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1002 ). On July 22, 1985, McChristion pled not guilty to all charges.”
United States v. Larry Weaver & Mark Schmanke, United States of Am. v. Everett Decker, Jerald Jessup & Michael Bailey, 882 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1989). “§ 371 , one count of possession of false and altered money orders (Count 159), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1002 , two counts of aiding and abetting transmission and presentment of altered money orders (Counts 127 and 134), in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Mei-Fen Chen, 913 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1990). “For example, see 18 U.S.C. § 1002 (possession of false papers to defraud United States); 18 U.”
United States v. Eunice Arnetta Harris Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145 (4th Cir. 1995). “, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1002 , 1005, 1006, 1012,1013, we must assume that the absence of any such requirement in § 1014 reflects a purposeful choice by Congress.”
Mendez v. Barr, 960 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2020). “§ 152 (2) (subjecting to criminal penalties any person who “knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11”); and 18 U.S.C. § 1002 (subjecting to criminal penalties, any person who “knowingly and with intent to defraud the…”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidney C. LAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant, 26 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1994). “§ 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 1002 for "willfully and knowingly making or causing to be made a false statement as to material facts in the EDA grant application.”
O'Brien Gear & Mach. Co. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 187 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “Another was that on August 18, 1967, in the year under review, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1002 , he knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States had possession of 3,000 false, forged and counterfeited Certificate of Test forms purporting to be forms of Central Steel &…”
United States v. Councilman, 373 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 2004). “Data packets are then reassembled in the proper sequence at the call’s destination”); United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic Surveillance in a Digital Age 33 (1995) (stating that eighty percent of the telephone switches in the United States in 1991…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.