18 U.S.C. § 371
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15,626
cases (1,103 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Coplan
United States v. Coplan (2012)
“At issue, among other things, is the scope of criminal liability in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the criminal intent of certain defendants.”
Ocasio v. United States (2016)
“§1951 , and of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371 . At trial, the District Court rejected petitioner’s argument that—because the Hobbs Act prohibits the obtaining of property “from another”—a Hobbs Act con- spiracy requires proof that the…”
United States v. Stewart (2009)
“In particular, we affirm the judgments as to each defendant's conviction of conspiring *99 to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 , by violating SAMs imposed upon Abdel Rahman.”
United States v. Rigas (2010)
“OPINION OF THE COURT FUENTES, Circuit Judge, with whom McKEE, Chief Judge, and BARRY, AMBRO, SMITH, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, join: Defendants John and Timothy Rigas (the "Rigases") seek to prevent their federal trial in Pennsylvania for conspiracy to defraud the…”
United States v. Terry Christensen (2016)
“§ 1030 (a)(4)); Conspiracy to intercept and use wire communications ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ); Interception of wire communications ( 18 U.”
United States v. F. Thomas Little, United States of America v. Peter Chernik, United States of America v. Harold Grutchf (1985)
“Chernik, and Harold Grutchfield challenge their convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful function of the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Treasury in the collection of tax revenue, in violation…”
Tanner v. United States (1987)
“Petitioners William Conover and Anthony Tanner were convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371 , and of committing mail fraud in *110 violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr. (2006)
“§§ 1343 , 1346, and 2 (Count Six), and one count of conspiracy to commit the above substantive offenses and to commit union pension fund fraud, securities fraud, and fraud by an investment advisor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count Two) (the “pension fund fraud/kickbacks…”
United States v. Lourdes Margarita Garcia (2018)
“In particular, she urges that the indictment failed to include all of the necessary elements to charge her with joining in a Klein conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 . She also takes issue with a number of the district court’s jury instructions, and invokes the 41 Case:…”
United States v. Gustavo Dominguez (2011)
“§ 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i), and 18 U.S.C. § 371 . Counts 5, 6, 10, 13, and 19 charge Dominguez with aiding and abetting the attempt to bring in aliens to the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.”
United States v. David L. Smith, United States of America v. Herbert A. Bates (2005)
“The jury found Bates guilty of: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in the ascertainment, computation, or assessment of taxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; (2) multiple counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of false and fraudulent tax…”
United States v. Jose Ochoa (2017)
“The removal underlying the defendant’s illegal reentry conviction was based on the defendant’s prior conviction for conspiracy to export defense articles without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 22 U.S.C. § 2778 . The panel held that by criminalizing unlicensed…”
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.