18 U.S.C. § 513
Securities of the States and private entities
Section 916 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), was renumbered section 917 by Pub. L. 111–24, title IV, § 401(1),
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “under this title” for “of not more than $250,000”, was executed by making the substitution for “not more than $250,000”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $250,000”.
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330008(1), substituted “association of persons” for “association or persons”.
1990—Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 101–647 struck out “(15 U.S.C. 1693(c))” after “Electronic Fund Transfer Act” and inserted comma after “profit-sharing agreement”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 471
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: United States v. Charles Lakeetoe Wade, 266 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Charles Lakeetoe Wade, 266 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2001). “§ 1014 , possession of counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a), possession of implements for making counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) & Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261), 435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006). “This case presents a question of first impression for this court: the meaning of the phrase “with intent to deceive another” found in 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a), which prohibits possession of counterfeit and forged securities with this deceptive intent.”
United States v. Jane Reasor, A/K/A San Juanita Rangel Reasor, 418 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2005). “Rea-sor appeals her convictions and sentences based on the twenty-eight counts of forgery of securities under 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a), contending that her forgery pleas were not supported by an adequate factual basis as required by Fed.”
United States v. Vampire Nation A/K/A Fredrik Von Hamilton A/K/A Frederick Hamilton Banks, Frederick H. Banks, 451 F.3d 189 (3rd Cir. 2006). “§ 1957 (Count Five); one count of uttering and possessing counterfeit and forged securities, 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a) (Count Six); and one count of witness tampering, 18 U.”
United States of Am. v. Marvin L. Pullman, Also Known as Dick Pullman, 187 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1999). “Only his challenge to the conspiracy conviction and his interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 warrant substantial discussion, and we affirm the district court 1 on all issues raised.”
United States v. John Van Shutters, II, 163 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 1998). “Shutters challenges his conviction on the grounds that evidence used against him at trial was the tainted product of three unconstitutional searches by the police, and that his conduct did not satisfy a jurisdictional element of the federal counterfeit securities statute, 18…”
United States v. Prosperi, 201 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2000). “KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal involves a statutory interpretation question of first impression: whether the definition of “counterfeited” provided in 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a) incorporates or replaces the preexisting common law definition which requires a showing of…”
United States v. Alan N. Scott, 270 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001). “§ 1344 (1994), and to making and possessing a forged check, 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a) (1994). Scott took checks from a Boston law firm that had employed him as a legal assistant in 1995.”
Ming Lam Sui v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 250 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2001). “In May 1997, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, he pleaded guilty to a one-c'ount indictment charging him with knowingly and unlawfully possessing counterfeit securities with the intent to deceive another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513…”
United States v. Gregory Vincent Hunt, 456 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2006). “Hunt did not utter “forged” securities within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a), the statute under which he was charged.”
United States v. Dennis Gray Williams, 790 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015). “The terms found in § 514(a) are defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 513 . See 18 U.S.C. § 514 (b) (stating that “any term used in this section that is defined in section 513(c) has the same meaning”).”
United States v. Pierre Watson, 883 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2018). “§ 1344 (Count Two); and passing counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a) (Count Nine). 1 Following a bench trial, the district court 2 found Watson guilty of three additional charges: passing counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) — 5 cases
United States v. John Van Shutters, II, 163 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 1998). “Shutters challenges his conviction on the grounds that evidence used against him at trial was the tainted product of three unconstitutional searches by the police, and that his conduct did not satisfy a jurisdictional element of the federal counterfeit securities statute, 18…”
United States v. Rahiem Brooks, 394 F. App'x 953 (3rd Cir. 2010).
United States v. Geddes (D. Utah 2022).
United States v. Gibson (4th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Edward Arnold Miller (4th Cir. 1999).
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.