Whoever makes, alleges, or presents any claim or application for indemnity for the loss of any registered or insured letter, parcel, package, or other article or matter, or the contents thereof, knowing such claim or application to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or
Whoever for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of any such claim or application, makes or uses any false statement, certificate, affidavit, or deposition; or
Whoever knowingly and willfully misrepresents, or misstates, or, for the purpose aforesaid, knowingly and willfully conceals any material fact or circumstance in respect of any such claim or application for indemnity—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Where the amount of such claim or application for indemnity is less than $1,000 only a fine shall be imposed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
· cites it 2× “government); 18 U. S. C. § 288 (penalizing false claims for postal losses); 18 U.”
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 466 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 3631 (b),(c) (threat with the purpose of intimidating someone from engaging in protected activities); 18 U.S.C. § 288 (false statement for purpose of obtaining payment on false postal indemnity claim); 18 U.”
United States v. Zumar DuBose (3rd Cir. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Though the evidence at trial also may support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 288 , Zumar was convicted for crimes charged in the Indictment, based on the District Court’s instructions on those offenses as applied by the jury to the extensive evidence introduced during trial…”
United States v. Berner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D.S.D. 2008).
“The amount of support past due is a substantive element of the offense in its felony form much like the $1,000 threshold in false claims cases under 18 U.S.C. § 288 . The amount due is not jurisdictional.”
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.