18 U.S.C. § 494
Contractors’ bonds, bids, and public records
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2023 · leading case: United States v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780 (5th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780 (5th Cir. 2000). “Prestenbach was indicted and convicted of four counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 494 . 1 Each count had charged him with knowing possession with intent to utter and publish as true one of the altered money orders.”
United States v. Alex G. Merklinger, 16 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1994). “Count 8 charged him with falsely making guarantee, and aiding and abetting the false making of guarantee, pertaining to bond to an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 494 , 2. Trial was held in December 1992.”
Lowe v. Viewpoint Bank, 972 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Tex. 2013). “Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to cite any legal authority to support a finding that she has a private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 494 , which criminalizes falsely making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting bonds and other instruments for the purpose of defrauding the…”
United States v. Planck, 493 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2007). “" Plank contends: despite the possession of child pornography in three different types of devices, his acts still constituted only a single violation of § 2252A(a)(5)(B), because he was found in possession of the images at the same time and place. In support, Planck cites…”
United States v. Thomas L. Root, 12 F.3d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “§ 1843 (1988), and two counts of altering or forging public records in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 494 (1988). 1 Each of these counts corresponds to appellant’s conduct in *1118 the course of representing one of the following five organizations — Northern Missouri Christian…”
Kalos v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 230 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “¶¶ 42-44 (contending that the Federal Bureau of Prisons could not take any action with respect to the payment and performance bonds because the bonds were counterfeit), 77 (contending that 18 U.S.C. § 494 prohibits the United States from receiving money based on a counterfeit…”
United States v. Aaron Stern, United States of Am. v. Lawrence Gordon, 13 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 1994). “18 U.S.C. § 494 (making, uttering or presenting counterfeit bond).”
United States v. Antony Michael Upton, Santa Barbara Castle Dev. Corp., A/K/A Castle Constr. Corp., & Ronald R. Barrick, 91 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 1996). “Count eight charged Benefax and Maness with presenting a falsely made, forged or counterfeit writing to the Air Force in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 494 and 2. The jury found Barriek, Upton, and Castle guilty on all charged counts.”
Daniel Jackson Oliver Wendel Holmes Morgan v. United States, 309 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1962). “Appellant contends that neither 18 U.S.C. § 494 nor 22 D.C.Code § 1401 applies to his alleged offenses, and that consequently four of the five counts which carried a three to ten year sentence must be dismissed.”
United States v. Joseph Calabro, 467 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1972). “A twenty-eighth count charging John Conforti and his wife Loretta with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 494 was dismissed by the court for lack of evidence.”
United States v. David M. Davila & Robert M. Jacques, 704 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1983). “18 U.S.C. § 494 states in part: Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any .”
United States v. Thevis, 469 F. Supp. 490 (D. Conn. 1979). “§§ 922 (g) and 924(a), and possession of a fraudulent passport, 18 U.S.C. § 494 . The defendants were apprehended on November 9, 1978 by the FBI and officers of the Bloomfield Police Department.”
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.