18 U.S.C. § 514
Fictitious obligations
Sections 101(f) [title VI, § 648(b)(1)] and 2603(b)(1) of div. A of Pub. L. 104–208 added identical sections 514.
Section effective
For transfer of the functions, personnel, assets, and obligations of the United States Secret Service, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 381, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Dennis Gray Williams
United States v. Dennis Gray Williams (2015)
“Introduction Dennis Gray Williams (“Williams”) appeals his convictions under a seven-count indictment for the passing of “false or fictitious” instruments (Counts 1-5), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a); the use of an unauthorized “access device” (Count 6), in violation of 18…”
United States of America v. Marvin L. Pullman, Also Known as Dick Pullman (1999)
“He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 514 (Supp. II 1996), 4 which he was not charged with violating, defines the offense he committed.”
United States v. Morganfield (2007)
“HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: Ellis Morganfield and Leroy Thomas were each convicted on one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a), and one count of aiding and abetting the violation of 18 U.”
Jones v. United States (1999)
“, 18 U. S. C. § 514 (1994 ed., Supp. II) , which draw a provision to its close.”
United States v. Edward Keith Howick (2001)
“superseding indictment, Howick was charged with (1) possession *1062 with intent to defraud of fictitious documents “appearing, representing, or contriving” to be an actual financial instrument (specifically, a one-hundred million dollar Federal Reserve note and a five-hundred…”
United States v. Salman (2008)
“Salman appeals his convictions for two counts of passing a fictitious financial instrument, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2), and two counts of attempting corruptly to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.”
United States v. Michael A. Riley (2003)
“Riley pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to produce fictitious obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2), one count of possession of fictitious obligations in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Jones (2020)
“) for the use of “false or fictitious” government financial documents, in 31 violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 514 and 2. Jones acknowledges that he used fake 1 government transportation requests and purchase orders but argues that there is 2 insufficient evidence to support his…”
United States v. Pansier (2009)
“§ 7206 (1); and twenty-two counts of fraudulently passing *730 fictitious financial instruments, appearing to be issued under the authority of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2). Pansier made his initial appearance at an arraignment on January 27, 2006.”
United States v. Boris Granik, Alexander Iskolsky, and Semyon Bumagin (2004)
“§§ 371 , 513(a), 514(a)(2) and to passing or attempting to pass a fictitious obligation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2). In his plea agreement, Bumagin stipulated that the offenses “involved a loss or attempted loss” between $500,000 and $800,000.”
United States v. Charise Stone (2017)
“§ 1014 , fictitious obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 , obstructing and impeding the due administration of internal revenue laws in violation of 26 U.”
United States v. Heath (2008)
“§ 7201 , and with two counts of presenting fictitious financial instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2). At the conclusion of the trial, the district court granted Heath’s motion, filed pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to dismiss the…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Salman (2008)
“Salman appeals his convictions for two counts of passing a fictitious financial instrument, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2), and two counts of attempting corruptly to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.”
Cook v. United States (2024)
United States v. Salman (2008)
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.