18 U.S.C. § 1348
Securities and commodities fraud
2009—Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(e)(1)(A), inserted “and commodities” before “fraud” in section catchline.
Pars. (1), (2). Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(e)(1)(B), (C), inserted “any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or” before “any security”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 214
cases (90 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230 (2d Cir. 2022).
United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230 (2d Cir. 2022). “§ 1343 , and securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348 ; and convicting 3 certain of the defendants on various counts of conspiring to engage in conduct violating one 4 or more of the above sections, all originating from misappropriation of confidential 5 information…”
United States v. Michael Coscia, 866 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2017). “§§ 6c(a)(5)(C) and 13(a)(2), and with commodities fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1348 (1). He was convicted by a jury and later sentenced to thirty-six months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Douglas Decinces, 808 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2015). “The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mazzo’s interlocutory cross-appeal challenging the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the portion of the indictment alleging securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348 . The panel held that it has no pendent…”
United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348 , 1349. In 2009 the government retried the conspiracy count before Judge John Gleeson, with honest services fraud and property fraud as the charged objects of the conspiracy.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mitchell Stein, 906 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2018). “The fourteen-count indictment charged Stein with three counts of securities fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1348 ), three counts of wire fraud ( 18 U.”
Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008). “745, 802-04 (2002), added § 1514A to Title 18 of the United States Code, providing "whistleblower" protection for employees of publicly-traded companies by prohibiting their employers from retaliating against them for providing information or cooperating in investigations…”
Jeffrey Wiest v. Thomas Lynch, 710 F.3d 121 (3rd Cir. 2013). “) That would seem to point to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348 , which involves fraud in connection with a sale of securities, or of a “rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.”
United States v. Blaszczak, 947 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2019). “1 The gravamen of 1The superseding indictment charged Defendants with violating both subsections (1) and (2) of 18 U.S.C. § 1348 , either of which may independently support a conviction.”
United States v. Sushovan Hussain, 972 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2020). “A few months later, the government superseded the indictment and added one count of securities fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1348 . The government’s theory for this charge was that Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud “in connection with” HP securities by “caus[ing] HP to issue a…”
United States v. Greenlaw, 84 F.4th 325 (5th Cir. 2023). “§ 1349 ( 18 U.S.C. § 1348 ); and eight counts of securities fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.”
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016). “§ 1951 (affecting interstate or foreign commerce “in any way or degree,” by “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, on fear, or under color of official right” or “attempting]” to do so); wire…”
United States v. Robert Harra, Jr., 985 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 2021). “§ 371 (Count One); secu- rities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348 (Count Two); making false statements to the SEC and Federal Reserve in vi- olation of 18 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.