18 U.S.C. § 3615
Criminal default
Whoever, having been sentenced to pay a fine, willfully fails to pay the fine, shall be fined not more than twice the amount of the unpaid balance of the fine or $10,000, whichever is greater, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: United States v. Pedro Carrillo Payan, 992 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Pedro Carrillo Payan, 992 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1993). “75 Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 3615 (Criminal Default) requires that the failure to pay the fine be willful before an additional sentence can be imposed on the defendant: Whoever, having been sentenced to pay a fine, willfully fails to pay the fine, shall be fined not more than twice…”
United States v. Elvis E. Webb, 30 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 1994). “Although the district court no longer has monthly oversight over a defendant’s progress toward repayment of restitution, the government may enforce the order of restitution in any way authorized by § 3663(h), including seeking a judgment for criminal default under 18 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Sam C. Martino, Joseph C. Russello & Rolando Gonzalez Rodriguez, 681 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1982). “§ 3612 (forfeiture of bribe monies illegally received by public officials); 18 U.S.C. § 3615 (forfeiture of property used in connection with liquor violations); 18 U.”
United States v. Thevis, 474 F. Supp. 134 (N.D. Ga. 1979). “18 U.S.C. § 3615 (forfeiture of property used in connection with liquor violations); 18 U.”
United States v. Timilty, 148 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998). “§ 3614 , held in criminal default and sentenced up to a year, see 18 U.S.C. § 3615 , or held in contempt, see 18 U.”
United States v. Articles of Hazardous Substance, 444 F. Supp. 1260 (M.D.N.C. 1978). “§ 291 ); 18 U.S.C. § 3615 (illegal liquor, containers, and vehicles and vessels used in transporting it); 16 U.”
United States v. V. F. Bond, Audrey A. Bond, 279 F.2d 837 (4th Cir. 1960). “On the other hand, the plain intention of the Congress in enacting laws providing for seizure, forfeiture and disposition of property used in violation of the Internal Revenue laws, particularly 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3615 and 3616, was not to secure to the United States any claim for…”
Lem Pigg, Jr. v. United States, 337 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1964). “) The Government had also instituted forfeiture procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 3615 against the liquor and against a Chevrolet automobile which the Alcohol Tax Unit Agents had seized in connection with the liquor.”
United States v. One 1962 Ford Thunderbird, 232 F. Supp. 1019 (N.D. Ill. 1964). “305 , 315; see also, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3615 , 3617. Where there has been doubt as to the application of either a forfeiture statute protecting innocent lienors or one which was silent, the Supreme Court has held that the statute protecting innocent lienors should apply.”
United States v. Grande, 620 F.2d 1026 (4th Cir. 1980). “Although § 1963 authorizes an in personam forfeiture procedure, it does not, as we have shown, revive any penalty long in disuse, and it is not unusual when viewed in the light of the penalties provided for property used in liquor violations ( 18 U.S.C. § 3615 ), property used…”
United States v. Ambrosio, 575 F. Supp. 546 (E.D.N.Y 1983). “345, 349 (1982) (hereinafter cited as Rights of Innocent Parties).”
United States v. North Carolina Nat'l Bank, Intervenor, 336 F.2d 248 (4th Cir. 1964). “18 U.S.C.A. § 3615 . Eaves bought the automobile from King-Zane Motors, Inc.”
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.