18 U.S.C. § 1005

Bank entries, reports and transactions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, depository institution holding company, national bank, insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) 11 See References in Text note below. of the Federal Reserve Act, without authority from the directors of such bank, branch, agency, or organization or company, issues or puts in circulation any notes of such bank, branch, agency, or organization or company; or

Whoever, without such authority, makes, draws, issues, puts forth, or assigns any certificate of deposit, draft, order, bill of exchange, acceptance, note, debenture, bond, or other obligation, or mortgage, judgment or decree; or

Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization with intent to injure or defraud such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or any agent or examiner appointed to examine the affairs of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; or

Whoever with intent to defraud the United States or any agency thereof, or any financial institution referred to in this section, participates or shares in or receives (directly or indirectly) any money, profit, property, or benefits through any transaction, loan, commission, contract, or any other act of any such financial institution—

Shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

As used in this section, the term “national bank” is synonymous with “national banking association”; “member bank” means and includes any national bank, state bank, or bank or trust company, which has become a member of one of the Federal Reserve banks; “insured bank” includes any state bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and the term “branch or agency of a foreign bank” means a branch or agency described in section 20(9) of this title. For purposes of this section, the term “depository institution holding company” has the meaning given such term in section 3(w)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 346 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: United States v. Gallant

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Gallant (2008) ca10 · cites it 10× “Call Reports (Counts 47-54): Whether Baetz and Gallant knew the entries on the call reports were false Baetz and Gallant next challenge their convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1005 and 2, for aiding and abetting the filing of false call reports.”

United States v. Christy (2019) ca10 · cites it 6× “§ 656 (Count 1); six counts of false bank entries, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 (Counts 2-7); six counts of declaring false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.”

United States v. Henrich Barel A/K/A Steven Katz (1991) ca3 · cites it 13× “§ 408 (g) (West 1983), and three counts of making false entries in the records of banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (the false entry charges), in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (West Supp.1991) and 18 U.”

United States v. Harold v. Gleason, Paul Luftig and J. Michael Carter (1980) ca2 · cites it 8× “onvicting them (except for dismissal of charges in Count Three against Carter) of (1) making false entries in the bank’s records on or about March 31,1974, by false evaluation of securities with intent to defraud, thereby concealing operating losses in excess of $5 million and…”

United States v. Barbara Chaney (1992) ca5 · cites it 8× “§§ 371 , 1005 (Count One), and making false entries in Western Bank records in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 (Count Six). The district court sentenced Chaney to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment for each of these counts, suspended execution of the term of imprisonment…”

United States v. Fred De La Mata (2001) ca11 · cites it 5× “§ 1956 , making or causing to be made false entries, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 , and engaging and conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Diana Yates (2021) ca9 · cites it 6× “§ 1349 ) and 12 counts of making a false bank entry ( 18 U.S.C. § 1005 ). The government told the jury that Heine and Yates conspired to deprive the bank of three property interests: (1) accurate financial information in the bank’s books and records, (2) the defendants’ salaries…”

Christopher White v. George Keely (2016) ca7 · cites it 4× “White’s complaint alleges that the NBI Employees violated the False Entry Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1005 , by falsifying official bank reports in order to cover up unauthorized transfers made from White’s business accounts at the National Bank of Indianapolis (“NBI”).”

United States v. J. Joseph Kennedy, United States of America v. Robert J. Myers, United States of America v. Lawrence F. (1977) ca9 · cites it 5× “§ 656 ; § 2); and in Count Seven with aiding and abetting the making of false entries on bank records ( 18 U.S.C. § 1005 ; § 2). He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to one-year imprisonment and assessed a fine of $5,000.”

United States v. Harvard (1997) ca5 · cites it 9× “The most difficult question he raises on appeal is whether 18 U.S.C. § 1005 , which criminalizes the act of causing false bank entries to be made, embodies a requirement of materiality for an actual misstatement.”

United States v. Weidner (2006) ca10 · cites it 4× “§ 371 ; four counts of making a false bank entry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 ; and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.”

Durante Bros. And Sons, Inc. v. Flushing National Bank, Jack Farber and Richard Gelman (1985) ca2 · cites it 5× “§ 161 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1005 and 1014 (1982) (counts 2 and 4); and that in mailing monthly bank statements and a letter to Durante, defendants repeatedly violated the mail fraud statute, 18 U.”

Show all 346 citing cases →

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.