18 U.S.C. § 1083

Transportation between shore and ship; penalties

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

(a) It shall be unlawful to operate or use, or to permit the operation or use of, a vessel for the carriage or transportation, or for any part of the carriage or transportation, either directly or indirectly, of any passengers, for hire or otherwise, between a point or place within the United States and a gambling ship which is not within the jurisdiction of any State. This section does not apply to any carriage or transportation to or from a vessel in case of emergency involving the safety or protection of life or property.(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe necessary and reasonable rules and regulations to enforce this section and to prevent violations of its provisions.

For the operation or use of any vessel in violation of this section or of any rule or regulation issued hereunder, the owner or charterer of such vessel shall be subject to a civil penalty of $200 for each passenger carried or transported in violation of such provisions, and the master or other person in charge of such vessel shall be subject to a civil penalty of $300. Such penalty shall constitute a lien on such vessel, and proceedings to enforce such lien may be brought summarily by way of libel in any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof. The Secretary of the Treasury may mitigate or remit any of the penalties provided by this section on such terms as he deems proper.

(Added May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 23, 63 Stat. 92.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Donelon v. Louisiana Division of Administrative Law

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Donelon v. Louisiana Division of Administrative Law (2008) ca5 “There is no claim that he suffers any personal injury when an ALJ overturns one of his decisions regarding 18 U.S.C. § 1083 waivers. Nor is there a claim that he will be expelled from office or lose public funding if he complies with Louisiana law.”

United States v. Turner, Michael (2002) ca7 “*543 BACKGROUND Initially, Turner moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1083 (b)(1)(A). The district court denied the motion, and Turner decided to plead guilty, reserving the right to…”

Castillo v. Castillo (2025) casd “) quiet title; (3) partition; (4) ejectment; (5) trespass; (6) fraud 16 by intentional misrepresentation; (7) fraud by negligent misrepresentation; (8) abuse of 17 process; (9) violations of the RICO Act; (10) unjust enrichment; (11) temporary restraining 18 order and injunctive…”

United States v. Charles Costanzo (2011) ca3 “§ 669 ; (15) insurance fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1083 ; (16) and (17) filing a false return, in violation of 26 U.”

United States v. Dwayne Lequire (2014) ca9 “§ 3006A, after our court reversed *712 his convictions for embezzlement and conspiracy to commit embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1083 and 371. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.”

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.