18 U.S.C. § 472
Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 959
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco
Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco (2007)
“Before doing so, however, they arrested Rodis for violating 18 U.S.C. § 472 , [1] which criminalizes the possession and/or use of counterfeit currency, because the officers believed it would be easiest to continue the investigation from the police station.”
United States v. Richard Colby Parr and Vincent Rendaro (1983)
“As to the sufficiency of the evidence of intent under § 474, appellant argues that even though § 474 explicitly requires only “intent to sell or otherwise use,” the meaning of this section necessarily implies an intent to defraud or pass the bills as genuine as is expressly…”
United States v. Silva (2014)
“Anthony Silva was convicted in district court of possessing with intent to defraud counterfeit United States currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . On appeal, Silva claims that the district court erred in admitting evidence seized by police during and after his arrest,…”
United States v. Mousli (2007)
“On February 22, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Mousli with violating 18 U.S.C. § 472 , 1 possessing counterfeit securities, and 18 U.”
Fredy Paul Albillo-Figueroa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000)
“His petition presents this court with a question of first impression: whether a conviction for possession of counterfeit obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 , is an offense “relating to .”
United States v. Bardul Taftsiou, United States of America v. James Taftsiou, AKA James Taft, AKA Gezim Taftsiou, James (1998)
“2 Bardul and Nazmije Taftsiou, Julie Hasimi and Ilim Asimi were charged in’ Count Two-with passing approximately 17 counterfeit $50 notes with intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 2, and in Count Three with possessing and concealing approximately 90 counterfeit…”
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of America v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere (1992)
“Mark John Lamere pled guilty to Count Three of the indictment, attempting to pass a counterfeit obligation of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 , and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment followed by a two year period of supervised release.”
United States v. Edward Keith Howick (2001)
“§ 514 (a)(2); (2) possession of counterfeit obligations (specifically, gold and silver certificates), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 ; and (3) bringing counterfeit obligations (specifically, gold and silver certificates) into the United States, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. John F. Grismore (1976)
“Grismore, (Grismore), appeals a conviction for three counts of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 472 , uttering and possessing counterfeited obligations of the United States.”
United States v. Goncalves (2010)
“Goncalves pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of Uttering Counterfeit Obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 , and one count of Using Falsely Altered Military Discharge Certificate, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Almeida, III (2014)
“On July 20, 2012, a jury convicted Anthony Almeida of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . The court sentenced Almeida to fifty-one months’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Ashon Leftenant (2003)
“OPINION KING, Circuit Judge: On May 29, 2002, Ashon Leftenant was convicted of six counts of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . On appeal, he has raised several issues.”
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.