18 U.S.C. § 1919
False statement to obtain unemployment compensation for Federal service
Whoever makes a false statement or representation of a material fact knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact, to obtain or increase for himself or for any other individual any payment authorized to be paid under chapter 85 of title 5 or under an agreement thereunder, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1974–1998 · leading case: United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). “, 18 U. S. C. § 1919 ; 33 U. S. C. § 931 , while others do not, see, e.”
United States v. Tomeny, 144 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1998). “1990) ( 18 U.S.C. § 1919 ); United States v. Fern, 696 F.”
United States v. Michael E. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994). “§ 542 (maximum prison term of two years for entry of goods by means of material false statement); 18 U.S.C. § 1919 (maximum one year prison term for false statement of material fact knowingly made to obtain unemployment compensation for federal service); 19 U.”
United States v. Dennis D. Herring, 916 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1990). “Herring cites 18 U.S.C. § 1919 , which makes false statements to obtain unemployment benefits for federal services a federal crime, to further support his lack of jurisdiction argument.”
unempl.ins.rep. Cch 21,877 United States of Am. v. Danielle Facchini, 832 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1987). “After section 1001 was enacted, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1919 , which specifically criminalizes the making of false claims for federal unemployment benefits.”
United States v. Hansen, 566 F. Supp. 162 (D.D.C. 1983). “Defendant also argues that since section 706 does not contain a parallel provision to that in section 704 of EIGA which provides that the Attorney General’s authority to bring a civil action to enforce Section 704 “shall be in addition to any other remedy available under…”
United States v. Burnett, 505 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1974). “Defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that they should have been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1919 , which prohibits false statements to obtain unemployment benefits for prior federal service, and not under the general fraudulent statement provision, 18 U.”
State v. Sommer, 745 P.2d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “1974), the defendants argued that they should have been prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1919 , which prohibited false statements to obtain unemployment benefits for prior federal service, rather than under the more general fraudulent statements provisions of 18 U.”
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.