18 U.S.C. § 3237

Offenses begun in one district and completed in another

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

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.

Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person moves.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), where an offense is described in section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or where venue for prosecution of an offense described in section 7201 or 7206(1), (2), or (5) of such Code (whether or not the offense is also described in another provision of law) is based solely on a mailing to the Internal Revenue Service, and prosecution is begun in a judicial district other than the judicial district in which the defendant resides, he may upon motion filed in the district in which the prosecution is begun, elect to be tried in the district in which he was residing at the time the alleged offense was committed: Provided, That the motion is filed within twenty days after arraignment of the defendant upon indictment or information.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826; Pub. L. 85–595, Aug. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 512; Pub. L. 89–713, § 2, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1108; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, § 162, July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 697; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1204(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2152; Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 103 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 42, 36 Stat. 1100).

Section was completely rewritten to clarify legislative intent and in order to omit special venue provisions from many sections.

The phrase “committed in more than one district” may be comprehensive enough to include “begun in one district and completed in another”, but the use of both expressions precludes any doubt as to legislative intent.

Rules 18–22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are in accord with this section.

The last paragraph of the revised section was added to meet the situation created by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Johnson, 1944, 65 S. Ct. 249, 89 L. Ed. 236, which turned on the absence of a special venue provision in the Dentures Act, section 1821 of this revision. The revised section removes all doubt as to the venue of continuing offenses and makes unnecessary special venue provisions except in cases where Congress desires to restrict the prosecution of offenses to particular districts as in section 1073 of this revision.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 7203 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Section 7201 or 7206(1), (2), or (5) of such Code, referred to in subsec. (b), are classified respectively to sections 7201 and 7206(1), (2), (5) of Title 26.

Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”.

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–473 inserted “or the importation of an object or person into the United States” and “, or imported object or person” in second par.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–369 substituted “venue for prosecution of an offense” for “an offense involves use of the mails and is an offense” and inserted “is based solely on a mailing to the Internal Revenue Service”.

1966—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–713 inserted reference to offenses described in section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

1958—Pub. L. 85–595 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–713 effective Nov. 2, 1966, see section 6 of Pub. L. 89–713, set out as a note under section 6091 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 784 cases (67 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Edwin David Wood, II

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Edwin David Wood, II (2004) ca6 · cites it 10× “For venue purposes, this court has held that mail fraud is a continuing offense governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a). United States v. Holt, 899 F.”

United States v. Root (2009) ca3 · cites it 10× “RBI is headquartered in Reading and the Commission Agreement between RBI and New Perspectives was found at RBI's offices there. Additionally, Root often traveled to Reading in connection with his job.”

United States v. Angelica Lopez (2007) ca9 · cites it 6× “may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce .”

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) scotus · cites it 4× “" 18 U. S. C. § 3237 (a). The Act's prohibition includes an interstate *602 commerce element, 47 U.”

United States v. Jeffrey Sterling (2017) ca4 · cites it 6× “If this essential conduct continued across state or district lines, 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a) also makes venue proper “in any district in which” communication, delivery, or transmission of the Program letter “was begun, continued, or completed.”

United States v. James Romans (2016) ca5 · cites it 4× “The general statute that seeks to clarify venue in the case of multi- district crimes is 18 U.S.C. § 3237 . It provides that any offense begun in one district, but completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be prosecuted in any district in which the…”

United States v. Snipes (2010) ca11 · cites it 4× “On June 4, 2007, Snipes filed several motions, including a motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, under both 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (b) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b).”

United States v. Silverio Ramirez and Angelica Vitug (2005) ca2 · cites it 7× “Congress has codified the rule that continuing offenses may be prosecuted wherever a proscribed act occurs in the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a): Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district…”

United States v. Canal Barge Co., Inc. (2011) ca6 · cites it 18× “On appeal, the government argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants' post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal for lack of proper venue, because the defendants' PWSA violation is a continuing offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a) ¶ 1. In the alternative,…”

United States v. Russell Lee Ebersole (2005) ca4 · cites it 5× “With regard to the twenty-five wire fraud counts, Ebersole first contends that the district court erred in treating wire fraud as a “continuing offense,” triable under 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a) “in any district in which such offense was begun, continued or completed” — including any…”

Travis v. United States (1961) scotus · cites it 10× “In that view venue was properly laid in Colorado by virtue of 18 U. S. C. § 3237 (a) which provides: "Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United *634 States begun in one district and completed in another.”

United States v. Don H. Pace (2002) ca9 · cites it 7× “First, it contends that venue could lie pursuant to the “continuing offense” statute of *349 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a) because Pace’s wire fraud scheme was “begun” or at least “continued” while he was in Arizona.”

Show all 784 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) — 3 cases

United States v. George Lawson (1974) ca7

STATE v. DEGRAFFENREID, III (JAMES) (CRIMINAL) (2025) nev

United States v. Anudu (1996) ca4

— 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Snipes (2010) ca11 “On June 4, 2007, Snipes filed several motions, including a motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, under both 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (b) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b).”

United States v. Melvan (1987) cacd

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.