18 U.S.C. § 513

Securities of the States and private entities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title 11 See 1994 Amendment note below. or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.(b) Whoever makes, receives, possesses, sells or otherwise transfers an implement designed for or particularly suited for making a counterfeit or forged security with the intent that it be so used shall be punished by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.(c) For purposes of this section—(1) the term “counterfeited” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not, because it has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety;(2) the term “forged” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely altered, com­pleted, signed, or endorsed, or contains a false addition thereto or insertion therein, or is a combination of parts of two or more genuine documents;(3) the term “security” means—(A) a note, stock certificate, treasury stock certificate, bond, treasury bond, debenture, certificate of deposit, interest coupon, bill, check, draft, warrant, debit instrument as defined in section 916(c) 22 See References in Text note below. of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, money order, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt, negotiable bill of lading, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest in or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, pre-reorganization certificate of subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, or certificate of interest in tangible or intangible property;(B) an instrument evidencing ownership of goods, wares, or merchandise;(C) any other written instrument commonly known as a security;(D) a certificate of interest in, certificate of participation in, certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or option or other right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; or(E) a blank form of any of the foregoing;(4) the term “organization” means a legal entity, other than a government, established or organized for any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; and(5) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1105(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2144, § 511; renumbered § 513, Pub. L. 99–646, § 31(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3598; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3515, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4923; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330008(1), 330016(2)(C), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2142, 2148.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

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), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1751, and is classified to section 1693n of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Amendments

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
United States v. Charles Lakeetoe Wade (2001) ca6 · cites it 20× “§ 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) and Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261) (2006) ca6 · cites it 8× “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 (2005) ca5 · cites it 10× “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 (2006) ca3 · cites it 5× “§ 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 America v. Marvin L. Pullman, Also Known as Dick Pullman (1999) ca8 · cites it 14× “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 (1998) ca6 · cites it 6× “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 (2000) ca11 · cites it 10× “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 (2001) ca1 · cites it 3× “§ 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. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca2 · cites it 3× “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 (2006) ca10 · cites it 7× “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 (2015) ca11 · cites it 6× “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 (2018) ca8 · cites it 6× “§ 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 (1998) ca6 “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…”
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.