18 U.S.C. § 1007
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions
Whoever, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, knowingly makes or invites reliance on a false, forged, or counterfeit statement, document, or thing shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case: United States v. Kenneth Eugene Haddock
United States v. Kenneth Eugene Haddock (1992)
“§ 1014 , and one count of making false statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . Haddock raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the conviction on Count 10 of the indictment was insufficient to state an offense and…”
United States v. Willie Burns Martanette Alexander Gregory Eugene August Earline Montgomery, United States of America v. (1998)
“§ 287 ; four counts of making false statements to FDIC (Counts 14 — 17), 18 U.S.C. § 1007 ; and one count of money laundering (Count 20), 18 U.”
United States v. Kenneth E. Haddock (1994)
“§ 1014 , and one count of concealing relevant information from the FDIC in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1007 , all committed in the process of buying and selling loans for First Finance.”
United States v. Anthony D. Autorino (2004)
“§ 1344 (based on Autorino’s scheme to defraud the FDIC); and one count of making a false statement to the FDIC, 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . In connection with certificate 0959, Counts Six and Seven allege false statements to the FDIC, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Wesley R. McKinney (1987)
“The thirty-second, and last, count charged McKinney with causing false representations to be made to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation concerning loans made to an entity known as Mercury Capital Associates, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1007 and 2. A jury convicted…”
Stipe v. State Ex Rel. Board of Trustees (2008)
“in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . Taliaferro was an elected state officer, a state senator, and was removed from office as a result of the conviction.”
United States v. Paul A. Taliaferro (1992)
“In count five Taliaferro was charged with making a false statement on or around September 15, 1987, to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for the purpose of influencing the action of the FDIC in its debt negotiation with him, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1007 and…”
United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2013)
“, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1007 , 1344; see also 1 U.S.”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Blue Rock Shopping Center, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Appeal of Max Ambach a (1985)
“§ 264 (s), was transferred to the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . 23 . "The starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.”
Schmidt v. Fleet Bank (1998)
“) 18 U.S.C. § 1007 makes it a crime to knowingly assist a plan to defraud the FDIC.”
United States v. Hill (1992)
“§ 656 and one count of knowingly submitting false statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . 1 Before this court are defendant’s motion to strike portions of the indictment as surplusage (Doc.”
David B. Feingold v. United States (1995)
“§ 1001 ; and making a false statement in a document submitted to the FDIC, 18 U.S.C. § 1007 . For the reasons below, we affirm the convictions.”
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.