18 U.S.C. § 479

Uttering counterfeit foreign obligations or securities

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

Whoever, within the United States, knowingly and with intent to defraud, utters, passes, or puts off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged, or counterfeited bond, certificate, obligation, security, treasury note, bill, or promise to pay, mentioned in section 478 of this title, whether or not the same was made, altered, forged, or counterfeited within the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Proceedings in the District Court Sehlei was charged in Count One of the second superseding indictment with conspiring with Ah Loo, Hill, Hansberry, Takahashi, and Alan Reedy (1) to utter and pass falsely made, forged and counterfeit Japanese bonds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Timothy M. Mucciante, 21 F.3d 1228 (2d Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Leval, the jury convicted Mucci-ante on four counts of passing counterfeit foreign government bonds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 479 and 2, eight counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Warren S. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 371 (“Count One”); (2) uttering, passing, and putting off, in payment or negotiation, a counterfeit foreign obligation or security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479 (“Count Two”); and (3) possessing a counterfeit foreign obligation or security, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Dyer, 589 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the Second Circuit has interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 479 , which makes it a crime to "knowingly and with intent to defraud, utter[], pass[], or put off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged, or counterfeited" foreign bonds, only as a general intent crime.”
United States v. Alexander Sittenfeld aka P.G. Sittenfeld, 128 F.4th 752 (6th Cir. 2025). “1994) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 479 ) (finding no constructive amendment).”
United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001). “1994) (holding that identity of victim is not an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 479 , which forbids knowingly passing fraudulent government bonds), Richardson is in-apposite.”
United States v. John A. Kaye, 251 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1958). · cites it 2× “Kaye from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on trial before Judge Palmieri and a jury, on a verdict of guilty on two counts, the first of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479 by wilfully uttering with intent to…”
United States v. Victor Tavarez-Levario, 788 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2015). “18 U.S.C. § 479 ("Whoever, within the United States, knowingly and with intent to defraud, utters, passes, or puts off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged, or counterfeited bond, certificate, obligation, security, treasury note, bill, or promise to pay .”
United States v. Wilson, 901 F. Supp. 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “The defendant in this case is charged with uttering a false, forged and counterfeited Japanese government certificate in the amount of ¥ 300 billion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479 and 2. He moves to suppress statements he made to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation…”
United States v. Victor Tavarez-Levario (5th Cir. 2015). “18 U.S.C. § 479 (“Whoever, within the United States, knowingly and with intent to defraud, utters, passes, or puts off, in payment or negotiation, any false, forged, or counterfeited bond, certificate, obligation, security, treasury note, bill, or promise to pay .”
United States v. Tzernochov, 20 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2001). “1994) (construing “intent to defraud” in 18 U.S.C. § 479 ) (quotation omitted). Because we find that the district court amply established a factual basis to support Drukman’s plea, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
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.