18 U.S.C. § 281

Repealed. Pub. L. 104–106, div. D, title XLIII, § 4304(b)(3), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 664; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 602(d), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3503]

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972).
United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972). · cites it 4× “Johnson, supra , the Court reviewed the conviction of a former Representative on seven counts of violating the federal conflict-of-interest statute, 18 U. S. C. § 281 (1964 ed.), and on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.”
United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). · cites it 4× “Respondent Johnson, a former United States Congressman, was indicted and convicted on seven counts of violating the federal conflict of interest statute, 18 U. S. C. § 281 (1964 ed.), [1] and on one count of conspiring to *171 defraud the United States, 18 U.”
United States v. Bowles, 183 F. Supp. 237 (D. Me. 1958). · cites it 6× “Bowles * * Count V of the indictment charges the defendant Bowles with unlawful receipt of compensation in violation of the federal “conflict of interest” statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 281 . 5 It alleges that on or about September 19, 1955 Bowles, in his official capacity, “directly…”
Nimmo v. State, 603 P.2d 386 (Wyo. 1979). · cites it 2× “Johnson, however, argues that neither the indictment nor the court's findings can supply the missing element of scienter to the statute.”
United States v. Thomas F. Johnson, J. Kenneth Edlin, & William L. Robinson, 337 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1965). · cites it 3× “§ 371 , and the conflicts of interest statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 281 . 1 After a jury trial the four defendants were convicted.”
United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “The Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary describes the predecessor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 281 (1958), as prohibiting Members of Congress and officers and employees of the Government “from receiving compensation for services rendered for others before a Federal…”
Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954). “Petitioner seeks review of a conviction under charges that he violated 18 U. S. C. § 281 , a section which punishes employees of the United States who receive outside compensation for any services to be rendered in any matter before a federal department or agency in which the…”
Field v. Brown, 610 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 13× “18 U.S.C. § 281 (1976) forbids retired regular military personnel from “represent[ing] any person in the sale of anything to the Government through the department in whose service he holds a retired status” and provides a possible fine of $10,000 and a two-year term of imprison…”
United States v. Thomas F. Johnson, 419 F.2d 56 (4th Cir. 1970). · cites it 3× “Johnson appeals his conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 281 (1958 ed.), the conflict of interest statute.”
United States v. Russell E. Spitler, United States of Am. v. Duane Carpenter, 800 F.2d 1267 (4th Cir. 1986). “2d at 196 , we upheld the convictions of payors for having aided and abetted a congressman’s receipt of compensation proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 281 . The payors had argued, consistent with the Gebardi notion of statutory construction, that the statute manifested a legislative…”
Taussig v. McNamara, 219 F. Supp. 757 (D.D.C. 1963). · cites it 7× “§ 2282 : (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 281 is unconstitutional for vagueness or for failing to require any element of mens rea; and (2) whether 18 U.”
United States v. Johnson, 215 F. Supp. 300 (D. Maryland 1963). · cites it 4× “Each of the seven other counts charges that, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 281 and 2, 3 Johnson, acting in concert with and aided and abetted by the other defendants, directly or indirectly received compensation from Edlin and Robinson for services rendered and to be rendered by…”
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.