U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS

18 U.S.C. § 2

Principals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 17b, 65 Stat. 717.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 550 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 332, 35 Stat. 1152).

Section 2(a) comprises section 550 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., without change except in minor matters of phraseology.

Section 2(b) is added to permit the deletion from many sections throughout the revision of such phrases as “causes or procures”.

The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.

It removes all doubt that one who puts in motion or assists in the illegal enterprise but causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or instrumentality, is guilty as a principal even though he intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the completed offense.

This accords with the following decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S. Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L. Ed. 414, and United States v. Hodorowicz, C. C. A. Ill. 1939, 105 F. 2d 218, certiorari denied, 60 S. Ct. 108, 308 U.S. 584, 84 L. Ed. 489. United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S. Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L. Ed. 493, rehearing denied, 57 S. Ct. 505, 300 U.S. 687, 81 L. Ed. 888.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1951—Subsec. (a). Act Oct. 31, 1951, inserted “punishable as”.

Subsec. (b). Act Oct. 31, 1951, inserted “willfully” before “causes”, and “or another” after “him”, and substituted “is punishable as a principal” for “is also a principal and punishable as such”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16,473 cases (1,422 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 30× “For example, the aiding and abetting provision in the Federal Criminal Code states, in language similar to the language of section 271(b) of the Patent Act, that “[w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its…”
United States v. James P. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 22× “§ 2422 (b), and it is also a crime to aid or abet another in committing a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. § 2 . After using the internet to contact a person, who turned out to be an undercover government agent, in order to arrange for sex with two children, James Hornaday was charged…”
United States v. Encarnacion-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581 (1st Cir. 2015). · cites it 40× “§ 924 (c) by using a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, or, in the alternative, aiding and abetting that crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Id. At trial, Rosemond contended that he "took no action with respect to any firearm.”
United States v. Marvin Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 13× “§ 841 (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; Count 5: Charged Harper with distribution of in excess of 50g of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.”
Cent. Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994). · cites it 14× “2-465 (rev. 1993). Congress knew how to impose aiding and abetting liability when it chose to do so.”
United States v. William Ruffin, 613 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1979). · cites it 39× “The central issue raised on this appeal is whether a person incapable of personally committing a specified crime (in this case because he was not an officer, director, agent or employee of an agency receiving federal financial assistance) who causes an innocent agent meeting the…”
United States v. F. W. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076 (3d Cir. 1979). · cites it 27× “Although, on its face, § 7214(a)(2) applies only to government employees, such a charge is possible under federal law as a result of 18 U.S.C. § 2 , 4 which allows the punishment of an aider and abettor as if he were a principal.”
United States v. Harry Seidman, 156 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1998). · cites it 15× “§ 501 (c) (West 1985), or aiding and abetting the same, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 1969). The district court sentenced Seidman to thirty-nine months imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, and imposed a fine of $30,000.”
United States v. Joseph M. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 17× “Instead, Judge Sifton instructed that Margiotta could be found guilty of extortion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2 (b) only if the jury found that he had caused public officials acting under color of official right to induce a victim to part with money.”
Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (1980). · cites it 12× “§ 111— LaRocca as the actual triggerman and Busic as an aider and abettor, and thus derivatively a principal under 18 U. S. C. § 2 . In addition, LaRocca was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a federal felony in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. William A. Raper, United States of Am. v. Eli B. Childs, Jr., 676 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 18× “The indictment on this count specifically cited and relied upon the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Count II charged unlawful possession of heroin in violation of D.”
United States v. Catalan-Roman, 585 F.3d 453 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 24× “§ 1951 (b)(3) (count one), aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to the conspiracy in count one, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (count two), [4] aiding and abetting the March 27 robbery of an armored vehicle, in violation of 18 U.”
Show all 16,473 citing cases →
18 U.S.C. § 2(a): 8 cases
McKenzy Alfred v. Merrick Garland, 64 F.4th 1025 (9th Cir. 2023).
Est. of Kim Ex Rel. Alexander v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013).
United States v. Richard Ray Lacey, 86 F.3d 956 (10th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Jacob Polin, 323 F.2d 549 (3d Cir. 1963).
United States v. Fannie Alexander, 219 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1955).
18 U.S.C. § 2(b): 8 cases
United States v. Lawrence W. Wright Lawrence Wright, 363 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2004).
United States v. James M. Gabriel, Gerard E. Vitti, 125 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1997).
Hugo Bob Hubsch v. United States, 256 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1958).
Soto-Cosme v. United States, 320 F. Supp. 3d 350 (2018).
United States v. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 996 (D.N.J. 1950).
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.