18 U.S.C. § 1349
Attempt and conspiracy
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,822
cases (599 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: United States v. Stanley Presendieu
United States v. Stanley Presendieu (2018)
“Presendieu’s Indictment and Plea Agreement After being indicted on 15 federal charges relating to the check-cashing scheme, Presendieu pled guilty to only two charges: (1) conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1), and (2) aggravated identity…”
United States v. Jonas Rogers (2014)
“” See Sixth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 3.01A. Rogers insists that no reasonable jury could have convicted him of conspiracy to commit wire fraud because “there was simply no evidence to show that any agreement to commit wire fraud ever occurred, nor that there was…”
United States v. Anthony Roberts (2015)
“§ 1347 , from January 2007 through August 2011, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . Seven individual defendants, Antonio Macli, Jorge Macli, Huarte, Dr.”
United States v. Warshak (2010)
“(6) The evidence was sufficient to support Warshak's and Harriet's respective convictions for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.”
United States v. Carmen Gonzalez (2016)
“§ 371 , and a separate count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . The district court sentenced her to serve a total of 84 months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Napout Et. Ano (2020)
“Count Two charged Marin and Napout with honest services wire fraud conspiracy arising out of the Copa Libertadores tournament, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . 3. Count Three charged Marin and Napout with money 26 laundering conspiracy arising out of the Copa Libertadores…”
United States v. Chad Griffin (2023)
“Count 1 charged all five defendants with conspir- acy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . Counts 2 through 5 charged wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Mansour Sanjar (2017)
“Roberts cooperated and the information he provided about Spectrum launched an investigation that resulted in an indictment charging: • Sanjar, Sajadi, Hakimi, Main, and Nunn with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One); • Four counts…”
United States v. Keith Vinson (2017)
“The Indictment alleged thirteen charges against Vinson, as follows: • Count One — That Vinson conspired with Buck Cashion, Chapman, Ollis, Hager, and others to commit bank fraud, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 ; • Count Two — That Vinson conspired with Cashion, Chapman,…”
United States v. Caroline Njoku (2013)
“Njoku, Ellis, and Ubani were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . Njoku, Porter, and Ellis were each charged with one count of conspiracy to receive or pay health care kickbacks under 18 U.”
United States v. Pramela Ganji (2018)
“Pramela Ganji and Elaine Davis, were convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 , and health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Diana Yates (2021)
“Opinion by Judge Miller; Dissent by Judge Bress SUMMARY * Criminal Law The panel vacated convictions and remanded for further proceedings in a case in which a jury found Dan Heine and Diana Yates, who were executives at the Bank of Oswego, guilty of one count of conspiracy to…”
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.