18 U.S.C. § 550
False claim for refund of duties
Whoever knowingly and willfully files any false or fraudulent entry or claim for the payment of drawback, allowance, or refund of duties upon the exportation of merchandise, or knowingly or willfully makes or files any false affidavit, abstract, record, certificate, or other document, with a view to securing the payment to himself or others of any drawback, allowance, or refund of duties, on the exportation of merchandise, greater than that legally due thereon, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both, and such merchandise or the value thereof shall be forfeited.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 139
cases, 1923–2010 · leading case: Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 (1949).
Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 (1949). “The trial court charged that one "who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an act is as responsible for that act as if he committed it directly.”
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). “” 18 U. S. C. §550 . “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties…”
United States v. Figueroa-Cartagena, 612 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010). “" 18 U.S.C. § 550 (1940) (emphasis added). The current language was substituted as part of the 1948 re-codification of Title 18.”
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946). “1152 , 18 U.S.C. § 550 ) and for conspiring to commit that offense ( 35 Stat.”
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943). “If, then, Dotterweich is not subject to the Act, it must be solely on the ground that individuals are immune when the "person" who violates § 301 (a) is a corporation, although from the point of view of action the individuals are the corporation.”
United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401 (2d Cir. 1938). “Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 550 ). The first statute dealing with thq matter was passed in 1790 (1 St.”
Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (1947). “18 U.S.C. § 550 provides that one who aids and abets another to commit a crime is guilty as a principal.”
United States v. Klass, 166 F.2d 373 (3rd Cir. 1948). “Klass was the owner and builder of the house in controversy, and Stalford and Happel his agents in the sale; the latter were charged as principals on the basis of the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 550 . Four asserted errors are the basis of this appeal: (1) The…”
Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006). “The original federal aiding and abetting federal statute, initially codified in 18 U.S.C. § 550 , provided that "[w]hoever directly commits an act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its…”
May v. United States, 175 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1949). “The charges against the Gars-sons are rested upon 18 U.S.C. § 550 (1946). That section provides that “Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a…”
Barsky v. United States, 167 F.2d 241 (D.C. Cir. 1948). “1152 (1909), 18 U.S.C.A. § 550 . [1] Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, 30-31.”
Cochran v. United States, 41 F.2d 193 (8th Cir. 1930). “(2d) 574, 578 ; section 332 Criminal Code (18 USCA § 550). As said by this court in Greenberg v.”
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.