18 U.S.C. § 1003
Demands against the United States
Whoever knowingly and fraudulently demands or endeavors to obtain any share or sum in the public stocks of the United States, or to have any part thereof transferred, assigned, sold, or conveyed, or to have any annuity, dividend, pension, wages, gratuity, or other debt due from the United States, or any part thereof, received, or paid by virtue of any false, forged, or counterfeited power of attorney, authority, or instrument, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the sum or value so obtained or attempted to be obtained does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: United States v. Herbert G. Miller, II
United States v. Herbert G. Miller, II (1990)
“Bank auditors became suspicious and reported the matter to the government. The government filed an Information and, shortly after Miller’s trial, offered her a plea agreement, allowing her to plead guilty to one count of violating 18 U.”
Tucker v. United States (1980)
“On July 5, 1977, plaintiff was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003 (1976) in that he knowingly and fraudulently endeavored to have a debt from the United States paid by virtue of a false instrument.”
Manocchio v. Kusserow (1992)
“Subsequently, in October, 1988, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida filed an information against Manocchio charging him with making a fraudulent demand against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003 . Specifically, the government…”
United States v. Tiburcio A. Rangel (1978)
“Rangel appeals his conviction of knowingly and fraudulently demanding that a debt due from the United States be paid by virtue of a false instrument, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003 . We affirm the judgment of conviction.”
Ram v. Heckler (1986)
“I On September 9, 1982, Ram pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of medicare fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003 . Nearly three years later, on August 7, 1985, the Department of Health and Human Services notified Ram that, because of the 1982 conviction, in 15 days he would…”
Ram v. Heckler (1985)
“In 1982, he pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1003 . The alleged violation apparently was a result of Dr.”
United States v. Monsour (1981)
“On September 2, 1980, William Monsour, was sentenced by this court following a plea of guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003 . During the course of the pre-indictment investigation, the grand jury subpoenaed from defendants certain documents which relate to the conversion of…”
Leone v. Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2024)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1003 (2012). The billing at issue was submitted to both private insurance companies and Medicare and referenced billing code 97110 in the Physician’s Current Procedural Terminology Manual (CPT).”
United States v. Fleischer (2005)
“SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-appellant Mark Fleischer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making fraudulent demands against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 1003 , and was sentenced to a term of twelve-months’ incarceration, a $3,000 fine, a $237,000 order of restitution, and…”
United States v. Gibbs (2006)
“*244 PER CURIAM: Ferrell Benjamin Gibbs was convicted of “knowingly and fraudulently endeavoring to obtain a sum in excess of $1,000 in the public stocks of the United States and to have a part thereof transferred, assigned, and conveyed by virtue of false, forged, and…”
Mauzy v. Mauzy (2025)
“Facts “merely consistent with a 26 27 1 Plaintiff erroneously cites to 18 U.S.C. § 1003 as the CFAA. The Court assumes he intended to refer 28 1 defendant’s liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief.”
United States v. Charles Skym (2011)
“Skym, formerly a sergeant in the United States Air Force, contests his bench-trial conviction, tried by a magistrate judge and affirmed by the district court, for knowingly and fraudulently demanding payment on a claim against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1003…”
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.