18 U.S.C. § 641

Public money, property or records

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,921 cases (170 in the last 5 years), 1886–2026 · leading case: United States v. Kenneth Fairley

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Kenneth Fairley (2018) ca5 · cites it 20× “HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant-Defendant Kenneth Fairley appeals his jury conviction for theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (counts two and three) and conspiracy to commit theft of government property in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. William A. Croft (1985) ca7 · cites it 34× “The defendant-appellant, William Croft, appeals his conviction for one count of knowingly and unlawfully converting, to his own use, a “thing of value” of the Environmental Protection Agency (the services of Laurel Johnson), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1982). We affirm. I…”

Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury (2016) ca3 · cites it 12× “As the District Court persuasively reasoned: 24 [A]lthough CAFRA could be considered the prosecutor’s remedy, the forfeiture proceeding only resolves one of the two open questions in this case: were the Double Eagles stolen from the Mint and/or possessed by individuals who knew…”

United States v. Jordan (2009) ca11 · cites it 7× “The grand jury charged them with using the Sheriffs Office’s employees to access the National Crime Information Center database — which houses the criminal records generated by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies — and obtain the criminal records of those who…”

Carmelita Elcock v. Kmart Corporation (2000) ca3 · cites it 6× “(CBI), had pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 641 , which prohibits “embezzling] .”

United States v. Parker (2001) nywd · cites it 11× “§ 371 , conspiracy to commit theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Count II); Defendants Darnyl Parker, Ferby, and Rodriguez are charged with theft of government property on January 7, 2000, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Phillip Ray Jeter (1985) ca6 · cites it 9× “Jeter was found guilty of violating 1) the federal larceny statute (stealing of government property), 18 U.S.C. § 641 ; 2) the federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.”

United States v. Lee (2016) ca2 · cites it 7× “Briccetti, Judge, of theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 , sentencing him principally to 30 months’ imprisonment, and ordering him to forfeit $400,000 and to pay $400,000 in restitution.”

United States v. Barry Sussman (2013) ca3 · cites it 8× “After a five-day trial in May 2009 the jury found him guilty on one count of theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 , and one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Reagan (2010) ca5 · cites it 4× “Reagan was charged with five counts of theft of public money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 . A jury convicted on all five counts.”

Lawrence v. State (2021) md · cites it 5× “In Morissette, the Supreme Court declined to construe the federal conversion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 641 , as omitting mens rea as an element.”

United States v. Hinkson (2009) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 1001 (a)(2); and for presenting false testimony and a "forged form DD-214" in order to obtain benefits to which he was not entitled, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 642. As the date of the indictment makes clear, the government indicted Swisher more than two years after…”

Show all 1,921 citing cases →

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.