18 U.S.C. § 1350
Failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Robert Garfield v. NDCHealth Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006).
Robert Garfield v. NDCHealth Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). “” The plain meaning of the language contained in Sarbanes-Oxley, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , does not indicate any intent to change the requirements for pleading scienter set forth in the PSLRA, 15 U.”
Middlesex Ret. Sys. v. Quest Software Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “For the Form 10-Ks and 10-Qs issued from August 14, 2002 through the end of the Class Period, Smith signed the Certification of the CEO pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13A-14 and 15D-14, as adopted pursuant to § 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), and the Certification…”
FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat. Com, 658 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2011). “745 , 806 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ) (requiring the chief executive officer and chief financial officer to "certify that the periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act…”
Potter v. Hughes, 546 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley *1065 Act requiring issuers to certify periodic financial reports and providing criminal penalties, but no cause of action, for violations of the section).”
Al-Bihani v. Obama, 619 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “2002); see 18 U.S.C. § 1350 note. Likewise, the federal criminal torture statute establishes criminal penalties for U.”
United States v. Benjamin Stanley, Rufus Paul Harris, 739 F.3d 633 (11th Cir. 2014). “Harris was charged alone in an eighth count with false certification of a financial statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (c)(1). At trial, the Government adduced these essential facts: Harris founded and served as Chief Executive Officer of Conversion Solutions Holdings…”
United States v. Malcolm E. McVay, 447 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2006). “§ 371 (“Count 1”), and falsification of financial information filed with the SEC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Count 2”).”
Horizon Asset Mgmt. Inc. v. H & R BLOCK, INC., 580 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2009). “§ 7241 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , verifying that Block’s inter *766 nal controls were sufficient when the tax accounting controls were, in fact, inadequate, there is a strong inference of scienter.”
In Re FBR Inc. Sec. Litig., 544 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “Sarbanes-Oxley Certifications Plaintiffs allege that the certifications made by the individual defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , 15 U.S.C. § 7241 (a)(5), and 17 C.”
United States v. Michael Peppel, 707 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2013). “§§ 371 and 1349; willful false certification of a financial report by a corporate officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ; and money laundering in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Jeffrey Wilson, 879 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2018). “§ 2 (Counts 3-9); (4) wrongful certification of annual and quarterly reports by a corporate officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (c)(1) (Counts 10-14); (5) material false statements by a corporate officer to an accountant, in violation of 15 U.”
United States v. Robert Harra, Jr., 985 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 2021). “§ 78m (Counts Three through Sixteen); and falsely certifying financial reports in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (Counts Seventeen through Nineteen, as to Gibson only).”
City of Roseville Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D. Del. 2009). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1350 . As a result, the law no longer tolerates corporate executives who “bury [their] heads in the sand.”
Hayes v. Shelby Cnty. Tr., 971 F. Supp. 2d 717 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). “§ 1346 , and failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 . (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) Hayes also alleges violations of the RICO Act, 18 U.”
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Syron, 934 F. Supp. 2d 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (c)(1). If knowingly providing a false certification suffices to establish serious criminal conduct, then a fortiori it should be sufficient in a civil context to establish substantial assistance to a violation of the securities laws.”
Villeda Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “18 U.S.C. § 1350 , note, § 2(a). Torture is defined as any intentional act inflicting severe pain or suffering taken against an individual in the offender's custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation.”
In Re Spear & Jackson Sec. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2005). “Crowley and Fletcher had signed all of these forms, certifying them truth, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 . A July 10, 2003, article on StockLemon.”
United States v. Kun Yun Jho, 465 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Tex. 2006). “RCCL argued that this prosecution violated the international equivalent of a double jeopardy prohibition contained in UNCLOS Article 228, the statute of limitations provision of Article 228.2, and the prohibition from initiating a prosecution absent a request from the flag state…”
United States v. John Richard Liles, 432 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1970). “( 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ; 4 R. Anderson, Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure 677-80 (1957).”
In Re Am. Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 413 F. Supp. 2d 378 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (“Each periodic report containing financial statements filed by an issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission .”
In Re Intelligroup Sec. Litig., 468 F. Supp. 2d 670 (D.N.J. 2006). “Section 906, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , relied upon by Plaintiffs, see Opposition at 18-19, 29-36, provides for criminal sanctions, but it does not contain a private right of action.”
Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “The main thrust of their action travels under the Alien Tort Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , which grants district courts jurisdiction over actions by aliens alleging torts in violation of international law, and under federal RICO laws.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Jenkins, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Ariz. 2010). “78u(d), 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ; 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5; id.”
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 332 P.3d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “18 U.S.C. § 1350 (c)(1)-(2). Under long-standing criminal principles, a corporation is responsible for the crime of its CEO or CFO if the corporation “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the] commission [of that crime].”
In Re Hutchinson Tech. Inc. Sec. Litig., 502 F. Supp. 2d 884 (D. Minnesota 2007). “§ 7241 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , companies filing financial reports with the SEC must have their principal executive and financial officers certify, among other things, that the signing officers have reviewed the report; that the report does not contain any untrue statement of a…”
In Re Sinaltrainal Litig., 474 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “18 U.S.C. § 1350 , note, § 2(a). Torture is defined as any intentional act inflicting severe pain or suffering taken against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation.”
United States v. Trek Leather, Inc., 724 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (fraud provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley Act).”
Jane W. v. Thomas, 354 F. Supp. 3d 630 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “" 18 U.S.C. § 1350 . The Supreme Court, in Kiobel , held that the general presumption against federal district courts' jurisdiction over claims arising from extraterritorial conduct applies in the context of ATS claims.”
United States v. Travis Davis, 443 F. App'x 9 (5th Cir. 2011). “Similarly, nothing in the disposition of this case presents other legal grounds upon which to challenge the nondisclosure of the Cl’s identity.”
United States v. Wray, 369 F. Supp. 118 (W.D. Mo. 1973). “788, 791 (1941), and specific reference to the official citation of the statute ( 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ), which in certain cases may provide a means by which a defendant can inform himself of the elements of the offense, Gearing v.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Prakash (N.D. Cal. 2024). “Prakash also signed certifications in connection with the 20 Form 10-Q under Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 . Id. ¶¶ 68– 21 69. 22 On November 9, 2021, View filed a Current Report on Form 8-K that stated that its Audit 23 Committee, in…”
Jennings v. Vandergriff Honda (N.D. Tex. 2025). “§ 1692 et seq, 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , and 18 U.S.C. § 1028 .”
Horizon Asset Mgmt. v. H&R Block, Inc. (8th Cir. 2009). “§ 7241 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1350 , verifying that Block’s internal controls were sufficient when the tax accounting controls were, in fact, inadequate, there is a strong inference of scienter.”
Findwhat Inv. Grp. v. Findwhat.com (11th Cir. 2011). “745 , 806 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ) (requiring the chief executive officer and chief financial officer to “certify that the periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act…”
Potter v. Hughes (9th Cir. 2008). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring issuers to certify periodic financial reports and providing criminal penalties, but no cause of action, for violations of the section).”
United States v. Shanahan, 252 F.R.D. 536 (E.D. Mo. 2008). “§ 7241 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ; In re Hutchinson Tech.”
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.