18 U.S.C. § 481

Plates, stones, or analog, digital, or electronic images for counterfeiting foreign obligations or securities

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

Whoever, within the United States except by lawful authority, controls, holds, or possesses any plate, stone, or other thing, or any part thereof, from which has been printed or may be printed any counterfeit note, bond, obligation, or other security, in whole or in part, of any foreign government, bank, or corporation, or uses such plate, stone, or other thing, or knowingly permits or suffers the same to be used in counterfeiting such foreign obligations, or any part thereof; or

Whoever, except by lawful authority, makes or engraves any plate, stone, or other thing in the likeness or similitude of any plate, stone, or other thing designated for the printing of the genuine issues of the obligations of any foreign government, bank, or corporation; or

Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any bond, certificate, obligation, or other security of any foreign government, or of any treasury note, bill, or promise to pay, lawfully issued by such foreign government and intended to circulate as money; or

Whoever, except by lawful authority, prints, photographs, or makes, executes, or sells any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any genuine note, bond, obligation, or other security, or any part thereof, of any foreign government, bank, or corporation; or

Whoever brings into the United States any counterfeit plate, stone, or other thing, engraving, photograph, print, or other impressions of the notes, bonds, obligations, or other securities of any foreign government, bank, or corporation—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1942–1996 · leading case: Raphael Killebrew v. United States, 275 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1960).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Raphael Killebrew v. United States, 275 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1960). · cites it 2× “His main insistence is that the indictment charged no crime under the following part of 18 U.S.C.A. § 481 : “Whoever, within the United States except by lawful authority, controls, holds, or possesses any plate, stone, or other thing, or any part thereof, from which has been…”

State v. Hallock, 44 A.2d 326 (Vt. 1945). “The limitation of the federal jurisdiction in criminal cases to “waters out of the jurisdiction of any particular state” occurs in prior enactments as early as the Act of April 30, 1790, which provided for the punishment of certain crimes “committed upon the high seas, or in any…”

United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). “by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions,” Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war (compare Dynes v.”

United States v. William Grosh & Mario Garcia Kohly, 342 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1965). “Defendants’ remaining claim is that they did not “without lawful authority * * * possess a plate] from which * * * may be printed any counterfeit note * * * of any foreign government * * 18 U.S.C.A. § 481 , because they possessed the plates and would have been printing notes…”

Waldemer v. United States, 911 F. Supp. 1105 (S.D. Ill. 1996). “at 19) that appellate counsel failed to understand and appropriately brief the issues surrounding the applicability of 18 U.S.C. §§ 481 (g), 482, 483. This claim has previously been rejected by the Court as being without merit, supra at p.”

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). “by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions," Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war (compare Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How.”

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.