18 U.S.C. § 332

Debasement of coins; alteration of official scales, or embezzlement of metals

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

If any of the gold or silver coins struck or coined at any of the mints of the United States shall be debased, or made worse as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be, pursuant to law, or if any of the scales or weights used at any of the mints or assay offices of the United States shall be defaced, altered, increased, or diminished through the fault or connivance of any officer or person employed at the said mints or assay offices, with a fraudulent intent; or if any such officer or person shall embezzle any of the metals at any time committed to his charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins struck or coined at the said mints, or any medals, coins, or other moneys of said mints or assay offices at any time committed to his charge, or of which he may have assumed the charge, every such officer or person who commits any of the said offenses shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1967–2004 · leading case: United States v. Imran Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Imran Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004). “18 U.S.C. § 332 (b)(g)(5)(A). Contrary to Mandhai's assertion, the terrorism enhancement does not hinge upon a defendant's ability to carry out specific terrorist crimes or the degree of separation from their actual implementation.”

United States v. Donato, 269 F. Supp. 921 (E.D. Pa. 1967). · cites it 2× “After a trial before the undersigned, sitting without a jury, the defendant was found guilty of embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 332 (Document 6, p. 125). Defendant has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, alleging, first, that the evidence is insufficient to make out the…”

Andy Wallace Barnett, Robert Taylor Newman & Jack Coleman Stewart v. United States, 384 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1967). “It follows, of course, that an intent to use the altered coins to deceive those purchasing them for their value as collectors’ items is a sufficient fraudulent intent within the meaning of the statute.”

John A. Hilbert, III v. The Honorable John F. Dooling, Jr., in His Capacity as United States Dist. Judge for the E. Dist. of New York, 476 F.2d 355 (2d Cir. 1973). “Nothing we have said should be construed as precluding reindictment when there have been extraordinary circumstances such as fraud upon the court in obtaining the dismissal, suppression of evidence by a defendant, or the like, which would warrant an extension of time.”

Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst. & Holy Land Found., 291 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2002). “Presumably, they are referring to 18 U.S.C. §§ 332 , 2332a, 2332b and 2332d.”

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Daewoo), 613 F. Supp. 672 (D. Or. 1985). “On March 12, 1984, a Federal Grand Jury in Portland, Oregon returned a thirty-two count indictment charging defendants with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 332 , 371, 1001, and 1503 in connection with the importation of steel from South Korea into the United States during 1980-82.”

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.