18 U.S.C. § 548
Removing or repacking goods in warehouses
Whoever fraudulently conceals, removes, or repacks merchandise in any bonded warehouse or fraudulently alters, defaces or obliterates any marks or numbers placed upon packages deposited in such warehouse, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Merchandise so concealed, removed, or repacked, or packages upon which any marks or numbers have been so altered, defaced, or obliterated, shall be forfeited to the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1931–2020 · leading case: Andreas v. Clark
Andreas v. Clark (1934)
“The appellant, James Andreas, an Indian belonging' to the Mission Tribe and living on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation, reserved for that tribe in the Southern District of California, was indicted for violation of section 328, Federal Penal Code (18 USCA § 548), the crime…”
United States v. John (1978)
“1151 (codified from 1926 to 1948 as 18 U. S. C. §548 ), and amended, 47 Stat.”
In Re the Welfare of S.N.R. (2000)
“1938) (arguing 18 U.S.C. § 548 not applicable because individual was not enrolled member of tribe).”
Youngbear v. Brewer (1976)
“3048, did state that concurrent jurisdiction was relinquished to the State, and further expressly provided that 18 U.S.C. § 548 (Federal Major Crimes Act as then codified) was modified accordingly.”
Hatfield v. Sessions (2018)
“§ 2342 (a) ); defacing any marks or numbers placed upon packages in a warehouse ( 18 U.S.C § 548 ); and more. Even if the Founders did intend for such a result, the Government has certainly not carried their burden and established as much: they dedicate a mere two paragraphs of…”
Tooisgah v. United States (1950)
“1151 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 548 , Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat.”
Ex Parte Pero (1938)
“* 21 We conclude that the District Court did not err in holding that petitioners Moore and Pero are under the'exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and that jurisdiction over them in connection with the alleged offense was exclusively in the Federal District Court.”
Tenorio v. Tenorio (1940)
“These old territorial laws have never been expressly repealed and are still to be found in the current compilation as 1929 Comp.”
Tooisgah v. United States (1943)
“1151 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 548 , by a stipulation on this record to the effect that the homicide occurred in Caddo County, Oklahoma, on the restricted allotment of Ellen Mulkehay, a full-blood Apache Indian, title to which was held in trust by the United States.”
In Re FREDENBERG (1946)
“As a fundamental proposition the Wisconsin Supreme Court admits that the State courts are without jurisdiction to try an unallotted Indian residing on an Indian reservation for any of the crimes specified in Sec.”
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation (1956)
“” Originally, and until 1885, all offenses committed by Indians against Indians within the confines of Indian country were under the jurisdiction of the Tribal Courts. In 1885 Congress passed what is sometimes referred to as the “Seven Major Crimes Act”.”
Ex Parte Wallace (1945)
“” It is contended by petitioner that exclusive jurisdiction of the crime of rape committed by an Indian on another Indian or other person on an Indian Beservation is exclusively vested in the courts of the United States, citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 548 , which provides: “All Indians…”
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.