U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 9— BANKRUPTCY

18 U.S.C. § 157

Bankruptcy fraud

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
A person who, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud and for the purpose of executing or concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so—(1) files a petition under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary petition under section 303 of such title;(2) files a document in a proceeding under title 11; or(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim, or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under title 11, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending under such title,shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(Added Pub. L. 103–394, title III, § 312(a)(1)(B), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4140; amended Pub. L. 109–8, title III, § 332(c), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(b), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3562.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Par. (1). Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(b)(1), struck out “bankruptcy” after “involuntary”.

Pars. (2), (3). Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(b)(2), struck out “, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title” after “title 11”.

2005—Pars. (1) to (3). Pub. L. 109–8, which directed insertion of “, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title” after “title 11”, was executed by making the insertion after “title 11” wherever appearing, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–8 effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under Title 11, Bankruptcy, before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 11.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under Title 11, Bankruptcy, before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, set out as an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 11.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 197 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: United States v. Yurek (Wendy), 925 F.3d 423 (10th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Yurek (Wendy), 925 F.3d 423 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “" 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1). To obtain a conviction on this offense, the government had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.”
United States v. Harry Herbert Wagner, Jr., 382 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “§ 152 (1) and filing a false document in a bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 (2). Wagner was indicted in November 2002 after allegedly making false statements to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern *603 District of Ohio during a Chapter 7…”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Albert J. Desantis, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 237 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 8× “The relevant counts of the indictment charged DeSantis with bankruptcy fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1), engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified unlawful activity (“money laundering”), in violation of 18 U.”
Blue Mountain Mushroom Co., Inc. v. MONTERY MUSHROOM, INC., 246 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D. Pa. 2002). · cites it 6× “If BBNB is an incidental third party beneficiary then Defendant’s misrepresentations to BBNB within the Bankruptcy Court proceedings may or may not have been reasonably rebable because Monterey’s statements were made to a Bankruptcy Court under penalty of the ethics rules and 18…”
United States v. John Milwitt, 475 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “On March 21, 2002, Milwitt was indicted on six counts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 . 1 These charges were based on the bankruptcy petitions he filed on behalf of the tenants.”
Torrens v. Hood, 727 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “4(c), and possibly 18 U.S.C. § 157 (3) by helping Hood file an “ostensibly pro se [Voluntary Chapter 13] bankruptcy petition in bad faith to stall a foreclosure sale.”
United States v. Youssef Abdelbary, 746 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “To drive the point home, consider 18 U.S.C. § 157 , which criminalizes the filing of a bankruptcy petition in connection with a scheme to defraud.”
United States v. James Thomas McBride, 362 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 7212 (a), and three counts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 . In two appearances before the designated magistrate judge, McBride was advised of his right to counsel, including his right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to retain an attorney.”
United States v. Darren Chaker, 820 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “After a six-day bench trial, the district court convicted him on one count of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 (3). He now appeals that conviction, raising several constructive amendment arguments and a literal truth defense.”
United States v. Spurlin, 664 F.3d 954 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “Spurlin was also convicted of bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1), for filing for bankruptcy to effect and conceal a fraudulent scheme whereby he took money he was supposedly holding in escrow for a company with whom he was doing business.”
United States v. Naegele, 341 B.R. 349 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 8× “§ 152 and one count of bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 157 . 18 U.S.C. § 152 (“Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery”) reads, in relevant part: A person who .”
United States v. James Thomas McBride, 434 F.3d 470 (6th Cir. 2006). “§ 7212 (a), and three counts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 . A jury convicted McBride of all six counts on May 23, 2002.”
Show all 197 citing cases →
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.