18 U.S.C. § 24
Definitions relating to Federal health care offense
Sections 411, 518, and 511 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), are classified to sections 1111, 1148, and 1141, respectively, of Title 29, Labor.
2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–148, § 10606(c)(1), substituted “or section 1128B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b); or” for semicolon.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–148, § 10606(c)(2)(B), which directed insertion of “section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331), or section 501 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1131),” after “title,” was executed by making the insertion after “title” to reflect the probable intent of Congress because “title,” did not appear subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 111–148, § 6602. See below.
Pub. L. 111–148, § 10606(c)(2)(A), inserted “1349,” after “1343,”.
Pub. L. 111–148, § 6602, inserted “or section 411, 518, or 511 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,” after “1954 of this title”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: United States v. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019).
United States v. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019). “Without belaboring the government's reasons for this concession, we limit our analysis to David's conviction on count 4, which charged him with embezzling $ 2,000 from a "health care benefit program," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). 18 U.S.C. § 669 (a) prohibits, inter alia,…”
United States v. Ruth Whited, 311 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2002). “As we discuss below, the Center is in fact a qualifying “health care benefit program” because it is an “individual or entity who is providing a medical benefit, item, or service for which payment may be made under [a qualifying health care] plan or contract.”
United States v. Eddie Louthian, Sr., 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014). “” See 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). Medicare and Anthem are health care benefit programs for the purposes of the health care offenses.”
United States v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008). “18 U.S.C. § 24 (a). “The ex post facto clause prohibits the enactment of laws which increase punishment for a crime after its commission.”
United States v. Carmen Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2016). “” 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). In considering these statutes, it is plain that each requires proof of a unique element not required by the other.”
In Re: Admin. Subpoena John Doe, D.P.M. v. United States, 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001). “18 U.S.C. § 24 (a)(1). A federal health care offense also encompasses a variety of general criminal violations (e.”
In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum United States of Am. v. Dwight L. Bailey, M.D. Fam. Health Care Assocs. of Sw. Virginia, Pc, 228 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2000). “” Each subpoena stated that “[t]he production of such records is necessary to the United States Department of Justice’s performance of its responsibility to investigate Federal health care offenses, as defined in [ 18 U.S.C. § 24 ]” and noted that failure to comply with the…”
United States v. Steven E. Whiting, 471 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2006). “§ 669 by knowingly converting and misapplying funds deducted from employee paychecks for a health care benefit program as defined 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). Counts five through nine charged Whiting with converting $7,163.”
People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263 (Colo. 1984). “24(c), 18 U.S.C. § 24 (c), identical, in pertinent part, to section 16-10- *1269 105, the court held that it is within the trial court’s sound discretion to remove a juror whenever the judge becomes convinced that the juror’s ability to perform his duties has been impaired).”
United States v. Klein, 543 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2008). “” 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). Klein avers that the failure to instruct the jury that affecting interstate commerce is an element of health care fraud under § 1347 mandates that we overturn his convictions for health care fraud, at least where the government cannot prove the error was…”
United States v. Redcorn, 528 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2008). “18 U.S.C. § 24 (b). Appellants contend that a health insurance company cannot be a health care benefit program as so defined, and thus that because the indictment alleged that HNIC was both a health insurance company and a health care benefit program it did not properly state a…”
United States v. Lamarre, 712 F.3d 612 (1st Cir. 2013). “§ 24 (b), which defines the term “health care benefit program” for purposes of § 1347 as “any public or private plan or contract, affecting commerce, under which any medical benefit, item, or service is provided to any individual, and includes any individual or entity who is…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 24(a)(2) — 1 case
In Re: Motion to Quash Admin. Subpoena to RI Hosp. v. (1st Cir. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 24(b) — 1 case
United States v. Kawai Ary-Berry, 424 F. App'x 347 (5th Cir. 2011).
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.