In addition to any other remedies provided by law the President or, under regulations prescribed by him, the head of any department or agency involved, may declare void and rescind any contract, loan, grant, subsidy, license, right, permit, franchise, use, authority, privilege, benefit, certificate, ruling, decision, opinion, or rate schedule awarded, granted, paid, furnished, or published, or the performance of any service or transfer or delivery of any thing to, by or for any agency of the United States or officer or employee of the United States or person acting on behalf thereof, in relation to which there has been a final conviction for any violation of this chapter, and the United States shall be entitled to recover in addition to any penalty prescribed by law or in a contract the amount expended or the thing transferred or delivered on its behalf, or the reasonable value thereof.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Bertram L. Podell, 572 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1978).
· cites it 4× “7 Podell asserts that since 18 U.S.C. § 218 8 authorizes the United States to bring suit to recover any sum paid by the government in relation to a violation of the conflict of interest statute, Congress intended to preclude actions to impress a constructive trust on money…”
Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997).
“553, 624 (1997) (maintaining that FACE, “as an exercise of the commerce power, is clearly a congressional overreaching of power” (footnote omitted)); Lan Hoang, Note, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 218 : The Controversy Behind the Remedy, 20 Seton Hall…”
United States v. Podell, 436 F. Supp. 1039 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Under 18 U.S.C. § 218 , the United States is granted recovery rights with re *1042 spect to its transfers “in relation to which there has been a final conviction for any violation of this chapter.”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 1116 (N.D. Cal. 1977).
“Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 218 provides for the voiding or rescission of any contract by the executive or agency head when an employee of the United States has been convicted under the conflict of interest statutes for conduct in relation to such contract.”
Everett Town Taxi v. Bd. of Aldermen of Everett, 320 N.E.2d 896 (Mass. 1974).
“18 U. S. C. § 218 (1970). In addition, the special commission had before it a model statute drafted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (special committee on the Federal conflict of interest laws, “Conflict of Interest and Federal Service” [I960]), and two…”
United States v. Curreri, 388 F. Supp. 607 (D. Maryland 1974).
“The application, affidavit and order for electronic surveillance in this case each failed to contain that full and complete statement, required by 18 U.S.C. § 218 [2518] (1) (c) and (3)(c), demonstrating that other investigative techniques had been tried and failed and why such…”
United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
“The statutory remedy, set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 218 , is a delegation to the President, or to agency heads designated by him, of authority to “rescind any contract .”
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.