18 U.S.C. § 1168

Theft by officers or employees of gaming establishments on Indian lands

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

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, or individual licensee of a gaming establishment operated by or for or licensed by an Indian tribe pursuant to an ordinance or resolution approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission, embezzles, abstracts, purloins, willfully misapplies, or takes and carries away with intent to steal, any moneys, funds, assets, or other property of such establishment of a value of $1,000 or less shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both;(b) Whoever, being an officer, employee, or individual licensee of a gaming establishment operated by or for or licensed by an Indian tribe pursuant to an ordinance or resolution approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission, embezzles, abstracts, purloins, willfully misapplies, or takes and carries away with intent to steal, any moneys, funds, assets, or other property of such establishment of a value in excess of $1,000 shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or both.(Added Pub. L. 100–497, § 23, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2487; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3537, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4925.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “or imprisoned” for “and be imprisoned for”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 2003–2017 · leading case: United States v. Jeff Livingston

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Jeff Livingston (2013) ca9 · cites it 5× “§ 1341 ) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands ( 18 U.S.C. § 1168 (b)). Livingston argues that, in prosecutions under § 1168, the government must prove the gaming establishment is actually located on Indian lands.”

United States v. Florence White Eagle (2013) ca9 “§ 371 ; (II) theft and conversion from an Indian Tribal Organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1168 , 2; (III) bribery in violation of 18 U.”

Kaw Nation v. Springer (2003) ca10 “We agree that no private right of action for civil parties exists under 18 U.S.C. § 1168 . In reaching this conclusion, we find the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in rejecting a similar attempt to bring a civil claim under 18 U.”

Joe Daniel Holt, Jr. v. Robert M. Baker (2017) ca11 “§ 1983 ; stole his property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1168 ; kidnapped him in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Garza (2010) ca5 “After a nine-day joint trial, the jury found Isidro and Timoteo guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to commit the offenses of theft from an Indian tribal organization, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Bryant (2012) ca10 · cites it 2× “Her two-step argument is as follows: the statute upon which she was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 1168 , prohibits theft by “an officer, employee, or individual licensee of a gaming establishment operated by or for or licensed by an Indian tribe.”

United States v. Justin Yankton (2013) ca8 “A grand jury indicted Yankton and Black on one count of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1168 and 2. At trial, FBI Special Agent Kellerman testified that Yankton admitted that he knew that Black had submitted the LI-HEAP…”

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.