U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 47— FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

18 U.S.C. § 1031

Major fraud against the United States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—(1) to defraud the United States; or(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the Government, or the Government’s purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, or any constituent part thereof, is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.(b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and—(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000.(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title, including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d).(e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and 3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission, including—(1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the defendant;(2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and(3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law.(g)(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine imposed under this section.(2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if—(A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of official duties;(B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individual’s employer prior to furnishing it to law enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure;(C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, “original source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or(D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review.(h) Any individual who—(1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and(2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.(Added Pub. L. 100–700, § 2(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4631; amended Pub. L. 101–123, § 2(a), Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330002(a), (f), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2140; Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(d), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1618.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, referred to in subsec. (a), is div. A of Pub. L. 110–343, Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3765, which is classified principally to chapter 52 (§ 5201 et seq.) of Title 12, Banks and Banking. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5201 of Title 12 and Tables.

Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–21, in concluding provisions, inserted “any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the Government, or the Government’s purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or in” before “any procurement”, substituted “such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance” for “the contract, subcontract”, and struck out “for such property or services” before “is $1,000,000”.

1994—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330002(f), redesignated second subsec. (g) as (h).

Subsec. (g)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330002(a), substituted “a Government” for “a government”.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330002(f), redesignated second subsec. (g) as (h).

1989—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 101–123 added, after subsec. (f), subsec. (g) relating to payments by the Attorney General.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–123, § 2(b), Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to contracts entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 23, 1989].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 139 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: United States v. Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 13× “The indictment charged certain companies and five company officers with “executing] and attempting] to execute a scheme to defraud the United States and to obtain money from the United States by false pretenses” in violation of the Major Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (a).…”
Faulkner v. United Tech. Corp., 693 A.2d 293 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 6× “18 U.S.C. § 1031 . He argues that the trial court improperly struck the first count of his substitute complaint on the ground that it failed to allege a connection between the public policy expressed in the federal statute and the public policy of the state of Connecticut.”
United States v. Joseph Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “, 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (b)(2) (imposing heightened penalties for fraud offenses that “involve[] a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury”); 18 U.”
Michael P. Moore v. California Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab'y, 275 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 3730 (h), and the Major Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (h). Moore, who specialized in large antenna mechanics, told the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) Inspector General that he suspected fraud at JPL involving a large antenna JPL was building for NASA…”
United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “§§ 78j(b), 78ff (Counts 1-11), one count of fraud against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (Count 12), and four counts of making false statements, see 18 U.”
United States v. Ahmad Nadi & My Brands, Inc., 996 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1993). · cites it 6× “§ 287 (the False Claims Act), and one count of executing and attempting to execute a scheme to defraud the United States, in connection with a Government procurement contract valued in excess of $1,000,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (the Major Fraud Act). Defendant Nadi…”
United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: This ease requires us to interpret for the first time the $1 million jurisdictional amount requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (a), criminalizing “major fraud” against the United States.”
United States v. James Best, 219 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “McAvoy, then- Chief Judge, convicting him of aiding and abetting a fraud against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1031 and 2, and sentencing him principally to three years’ probation.”
United States v. Samir K. Sain, No. 97-3114. United States of Am. v. Advanced Env't Consultants, Inc., No. 97-3115, 141 F.3d 463 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (West 1997). The Act makes it a federal crime to defraud the United States in connection with a government contract that is valued in excess of $1 million.”
United States v. Litvak, 889 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2018). “§§ 78j(b), 78ff (Counts 1-11), one count of fraud against the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (Count 12), and four counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. McGeehan, 584 F.3d 560 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “A Superseding Indictment charged the same twenty-two counts of the Indictment and alleged an additional seven counts of fraud against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1031 and 2. The Superseding Indictment charged that, instead of faithfully managing BFTC’s…”
United States v. William Whyte, 918 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “Whyte of three counts of major fraud against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1031 ; three counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
Show all 139 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.