18 U.S.C. § 1040
Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: United States v. Scott Olsen, 760 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Scott Olsen, 760 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2014). “A jury convicted Scott Olsen of disaster fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040 and false statements in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Emiliya Radford (11th Cir. 2026). “1(b)(2)(A)(iii); a two-level increase because the offense in- volved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 , 3 id. § 2B1.1(b)(12); a two-level increase because Radford abused a position of trust or used a special skill, id.”
Kavanagh v. Hebron, 266 So. 3d 338 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “Count 1 of the indictment states that the defendants "did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree together to commit offenses against the United States" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040 "by knowingly and fraudulently making materially false, fictitious,…”
United States v. Tommy N. Tracy (11th Cir. 2020). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 1040 , it is illegal to knowingly .”
United States v. Eric McMiller (4th Cir. 2023). “That provision mandates an upward adjustment for offenses that involve “conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 ,” which in turn prohibits fraud “involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, disbursed, or paid in connection with a major disaster declaration .”
United States v. David Redfern (4th Cir. 2023). “That provision mandates an upward adjustment for offenses that involve “conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 ,” which in turn prohibits fraud “involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, disbursed, or paid in connection with a major disaster declaration .”
United States v. Jesse Griffin (4th Cir. 2024). “1(b)(12) enhancement was not properly applied to Griffin, the court still would have imposed the same sentence to appropriately account for “the nature and circumstances of 4 That provision mandates an upward adjustment for offenses that involve “conduct described in 18 U.S.C. §…”
Williams v. La Vie Residences (D. Nev. 2024). “27 Here, as the party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint states “Jurisdiction … 18 U.S.C. § 1040 … Fraud in connection with 2 major disaster or emergency benefits.”
United States v. Ryan Stevens (3rd Cir. 2018). “On March 7, 2013, Stevens pled guilty to a single count of disaster benefits fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040 . Stevens was ordered to pay $15,487.”
United States v. Chad Lightfoot (5th Cir. 2020). “Lightfoot ultimately was convicted of a single count of fraud in connection with a major disaster or emergency benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040 . He was sentenced to 71 months of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR.”
United States v. Harris, 349 F. Supp. 3d 221 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “§ 1343 ; one count of disaster relief fraud in connection with her scheme to defraud FEMA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1040 (a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) ; and one count of witness tampering, 18 U.”
Kavanagh v. Hebron, 266 So. 3d 338 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “Count 1 of the indictment states that the defendants "did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree together to commit offenses against the United States" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040 "by knowingly and fraudulently making materially false, fictitious,…”
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.