Whoever embezzles, steals, knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, willfully misapplies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets, or other property belonging to any Indian tribal organization or intrusted to the custody or care of any officer, employee, or agent of an Indian tribal organization; or
Whoever, knowing any such moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets, or other property to have been so embezzled, stolen, converted, misapplied or permitted to be misapplied, receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or the use of another—
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
As used in this section, the term “Indian tribal organization” means any tribe, band, or community of Indians which is subject to the laws of the United States relating to Indian affairs or any corporation, association, or group which is organized under any of such laws.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. William Aubrey, 800 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 6× “SMITH, Circuit Judge: For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 , funds paid from an Indian tribal organization to a contractor continue to be “property belonging to any Indian tribal organization,” as long as the tribal organization maintains sufficient supervision and control of…”
Kaw Nation v. Springer, 341 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 7× “The tribe attempted to bring suit in district court against its former officials and other individuals under a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1163 , but failed to establish that a private cause of action existed under the statute.”
United States v. Alfred Pemberton, 121 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Finn eventually was charged by information in 1994 with a misdemeanor count of misapplying tribal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 (1988). Finn pleaded guilty, but when he was disappointed in the sentencing court’s assessment of the sentencing factors, he exercised his…”
Kaw Nation Ex Rel. McCauley v. Lujan, 378 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 5× “In Count II they allege that (1) Munroe has been using tribal funds to pay Lujan’s salary and to pay Lee Stout, an attorney allegedly conspiring with Defendants to control the Tribe’s courts, and (2) these expenditures violated 18 U.S.C. § 1163 , a criminal statute prohibiting…”
United States v. Boggs, 493 F. Supp. 1050 (D. Mont. 1980).
· cites it 13× “This action involves a United States grand jury investigation to determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 1163 (embezzlement and theft from Indian tribal organizations) has been violated.”
United States v. Richard Edward Brame, 657 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 12× “BACKGROUND Appellant Richard Edward Brame was indicted on December 12, 1979 for embezzling funds from an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 . 1 The indictment alleged that appellant embezzled approximately $7,816.”
United States v. Flying By, 511 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “A jury convicted Allen Flying By of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 . The district court 1 sentenced him to thirty three months and ordered restitution in the amount of $8,200.”
United States v. Kimberly Smith Hastie, 854 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “1986) (holding that the district court “invaded the jury’s domain by declaring in [its] instructions to the jury that, as a matter of law, the [Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe] Telephone Authority constituted an Indian tribal organization under 18 U.S.C. § 1163”); United States v.…”
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.