U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 213— LIMITATIONS

18 U.S.C. § 3293

Financial institution offenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—(1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344;(2) section 1341 or 1343, if the offense affects a financial institution; or(3) section 1963, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves a violation of section 1344;unless the indictment is returned or the information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense.(Added Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 961(l)(1), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 501; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, § 2505(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4862; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320604(b), title XXXIII, § 330002(e), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2119, 2140.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Par. (1). Pub. L. 103–322 struck out “1008,” after “1007,” and inserted “1033,” after “1014,”.

1990—Par. (3). Pub. L. 101–647 added par. (3).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1990 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, § 2505(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4862, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to any offense committed before the date of the enactment of this section [Nov. 29, 1990], if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense had not run as of such date.”

Effect of This Section on Offenses for Which Prior Period of Limitations Had Not Run

Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 961(l)(3), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 501, provided that: “The amendments made by this subsection [enacting this section] shall apply to an offense committed before the effective date of this section [Aug. 9, 1989], if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense under this chapter had not run as of such date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). · cites it 2× “, 18 U. S. C. § 3293 (notes on effective date of 1990 amendment and effect of 1989 amendment); Cal.”
United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “As we conclude that the ten-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3293 applies to this charge, we reverse the district court’s order denying the government’s motion to reconsider and we remand.”
United States v. Jessica Arong O'Brien, 953 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 3293 (1). The statute of limitations for mail fraud is generally five years, id.”
United States v. Mullins, 613 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “This default applies to wire fraud charges, but 18 U.S.C. § 3293 (2) carves out an important exception: “if the offense affects a financial institution,” the government has ten years to indict a defendant before the prosecution becomes time-barred.”
United States v. Paul A. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399 (10th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “Counsel suggests that with 18 U.S.C. § 3293 Congress attempted to apply the enhanced penalties retroactively, which Congress clearly cannot do without running afoul of the ex post facto clause, and that such an attempt defeats Congress’ effort in § 3293 to retroactively apply…”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. James Scott Mann William M. Moore, Defendants-Appellants-Cross, 161 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “28 Conspiracies to violate §§ 657 or 1006 are governed by a ten-year limitations period, 18 U.S.C. § 3293 , but this statute applies to offenses occurring prior to its passage only if the previous limitations period (5 years) had not run on the date of enactment of the statute,…”
United States v. A. Guy Crouch, III & Michael J. Frye, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3293 . . Other evidence presented by Crouch indicated the records then procured may have consisted of or included documents related to other loans, and did not include those relating to Mark Con-nally.”
Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). “” (amending 18 U.S.C. § 3293 )). By comparison, Weingarten argues, the 2003 amendment to § 3283 does not contain any clear statement as to retroactivity.”
United States v. Frank Najjor, 255 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “Najjor filed a motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment alleging that the ten-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3293 had run. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.”
United States v. Valentino R. Madia, Jr., United States of Am. v. Paul Kampen, 955 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “Madia and Kampen (appellants) raise two issues in their appeal: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 3293 , which increased the statute of limitations for certain banking offenses, violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, and (2) whether the district court 1 properly admitted…”
United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2016). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3293 . We agree with the district court that the government must prevail because Daugerdas entered into a pretrial stipulation that Deutsche Bank “was a financial institution that was ‘affected’ ,.”
People's Trust Fed. Credit Union v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd., 350 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (D.N.M. 2018). “…1462a, 1463, 1468a to 1468c, 1790a to 1790c, 1831e to 1831k, 1833a to 1833c, 1833e, 2906, 3309, 3310, 3331 to 3356 ; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3293 , 3322 ; 31 USCA § 309 ("FIRREA"). In an effort to adjudicate the arbitrability of People's Trust's claims, the NCUA Board filed an action in…”
Show all 85 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3293(2) — 1 case
United States v. Biaou (D.D.C. 2026).
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.