U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 25— COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY

18 U.S.C. § 496

Customs matters

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

Whoever forges, counterfeits or falsely alters any writing made or required to be made in connection with the entry or withdrawal of imports or collection of customs duties, or uses any such writing knowing the same to be forged, counterfeited or falsely altered, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1990–2018 · leading case: United States v. Perry Reich
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Perry Reich (2007) ca2 “§ 493 (prohibiting forgery of writings issued by certain federal lending agencies); 18 U.S.C. § 496 (prohibiting forgery of documents pertaining to imports and customs duties), and still oth *189 ers enumerate several crimes, only one or some of which require an intent to…”
RODRIGUEZ-VALENCIA v. Holder (2011) ca9 “§ 506 ; customs papers, 18 U.S.C. § 496 ; ship’s papers, 18 U.S.C.”
United States v. Cowan (1997) ca10 “§ 493 (prohibiting forgery of writings issued by certain federal financial institutions); 18 U.S.C. § 496 (prohibiting forgery of documents pertaining to imports and customs duties); 18 U.”
United States v. Nathan (1999) ca3 · cites it 2× “The relevant smuggling guideline’s introductory commentary states: “This Sub-part deals with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 496 , 541-45, 547, 548 ... and is designed to address violations involving revenue collection or trade regulation.”
United States v. Christopher C. Gardner (1990) ca5 · cites it 2× “Counts 11-14 charged Gardner with violating 18 U.S.C. § 496 , using falsely altered Customs forms to obtain certificates of title to the automobiles.”
United States v. Manuelian (2018) dcd “§ 1343 , and forgery of customs forms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 496 . Defendant pled guilty in November, 2009, and in February, 2010, this Court entered a judgment against defendant, sentencing him to 24 months imprisonment followed by 36 months of supervised release.”
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.