18 U.S.C. § 1691
Laws governing postal savings
All the safeguards provided by law for the protection of public moneys, and all statutes relating to the embezzlement, conversion, improper handling, retention, use, or disposal of postal and money-order funds, false returns of postal and money-order business, forgery, counterfeiting, alteration, improper use or handling of postal and money-order blanks, forms, vouchers, accounts, and records, and the dies, plates, and engravings therefor, with the punishments provided for such offenses are extended and made applicable to postal savings depository business and funds and related matters.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock (2010)
“2 (citing McCulloch, supra, at 417) (describing perjury and witness tampering as federal crimes enacted in furtherance of the power to constitute federal tribunals); see also 18 U. S. C. §1691 et seq. (postal crimes); §151 et seq.”
Kim v. Kimm (2018)
“18 U.S.C. § 1691 (5). B. Litigation Activity as RICO Predicate Acts Here, Kim purports to allege various predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice allegedly committed by the defendants.”
Mayfield v. Asta Funding, Inc. (2015)
“…Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 , the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1691 , New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, and New York Judiciary Law § 487. Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief and declaratory…”
James v. Heritage Valley Federal Credit Union (2006)
“§§ 1985 , 1986 and 18 U.S.C. § 1691 . He also alleged claims under the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.”
United States v. Mohammed Sharif Alaboudi (2015)
“§§ 1591 (a)(1) and 1594(c); one count of sex trafficMng of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1691 (a)(l)-(2), (b)(l)-(2), and (c); and two counts of sex trafficking by means of force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Carpenter (2001)
“On appeal, Carpenter argues that the district court erred in denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis, brought by Carpenter pursuant to the All Writs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1691 , but which the district court recharacterized as a 28 U.”
Wilson v. Toussie (2003)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1691 (a). This language supports the interpretation that the grant of loans in a predatory manner is actionable under the ECOA.”
United States v. John Lavin (1977)
“18 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (1970). Among the prohibited activities that interfere with the mails are destruction of letter boxes (§ 1705), theft of newspapers (§ 1710), and fraudulently increasing the weight of the mail (§ 1728).”
Swartz v. Schering-Plough Corp. (1999)
“In Count XII, Swartz states that “[t]here may be violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1691 et. seq.” Am.Compl. ¶ 36.”
Davids v. Coyhis (1994)
“The Community alleges that defendants’ conduct violates RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., the IGRA, and the Tribe’s Gaming Ordinance, and that defendants’ actions constitute a trespass of tribal property and conversion of tribal assets.”
Kim v. Kimm (2018)
“18 U.S.C. § 1691 (5). 13 B. Litigation Activity as RICO Predicate Acts 14 Here, Kim purports to allege various predicate acts of mail fraud, wire 15 fraud, and obstruction of justice allegedly committed by the defendants.”
Backus v. I.Q. Data International, Inc. (2021)
“(FHA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (RICO). Defendants request the dismissal of plaintiff’s state law negligence claim, because the alleged failure to comply with or be familiar with federal anti-discrimination laws is not a…”
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.