18 U.S.C. § 1916

Unauthorized employment and disposition of lapsed appropriations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever—(1) violates the provision of section 3103 of title 5 that an individual may be employed in the civil service in an Executive department at the seat of Government only for services actually rendered in connection with and for the purposes of the appropriation from which he is paid; or(2) violates the provision of section 5501 of title 5 that money accruing from lapsed salaries or from unused appropriations for salaries shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.(Added Pub. L. 89–554, § 3(d), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 608; amended Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(8), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3002(a)(3), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805.)

Historical and Revision Notes
	5 U.S.C. 47 (less so much as relates to removal).	Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, § 5 (less so much as relates to removal), 37 Stat. 414.
	5 U.S.C. 50 (2d sentence, less so much as relates to removal).

Historical and Revision Notes

5 U.S.C. 47 (less so much as relates to removal).

Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, § 5 (less so much as relates to removal), 37 Stat. 414.

5 U.S.C. 50 (2d sentence, less so much as relates to removal).

The statement of the acts prohibited is supplied from section 4 of the Act of Aug. 5, 1882, ch. 389, 22 Stat. 255, as amended June 22, 1906, ch. 3514, §§ 6, 8, 34 Stat. 449, and Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1010, § 7, 64 Stat. 986, which is codified in sections 3103 and 5501 of title 5, United States Code.

The words “upon conviction thereof” are omitted as unnecessary because punishment can be imposed only after conviction.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 inserted “, or both” after “year” in concluding provisions.

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in concluding provisions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: United States v. Terry W. Holloway

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Terry W. Holloway (1993) ca7 “However, nowhere in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, did Congress repeal, amend, or otherwise specifically negate the continuing vitality of disjunctive sentencing.”

Cooper v. Dunlap (2025) mied “18 U.S.C. § 1916 (g). Mr. Cooper has filed at least three prior civil rights complaints that were dismissed by federal courts for being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”

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.