18 U.S.C. § 643
Accounting generally for public money
Whoever, being an officer, employee or agent of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, having received public money which he is not authorized to retain as salary, pay, or emolument, fails to render his accounts for the same as provided by law is guilty of embezzlement, and shall be fined under this title or in a sum equal to the amount of the money embezzled, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the amount embezzled does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1939–2021 · leading case: United States v. Doyle, 3 C.M.A. 585 (1954).
United States v. Doyle, 3 C.M.A. 585 (1954). “Quinn, Chief Judge: In my opinion the statute in issue, 18 USC § 643 , was not intended to accomplish the purpose attributed to it by my brothers, and the instructions of the law officer were prejudicially erroneous.”
United States v. Soccio, 8 C.M.A. 477 (1957). “” Again in United States v Doyle, 3 USCMA 585, 605 , 14 CMR 3 , Judge Brosman, agreeing with my analysis of this proposition, said; “Concerning the proof of the required willfulness, I am convinced that 18 USC § 643 , like its predecessor, 12 Stat 593 (1862), supra, placed on…”
United States v. McElroy, 3 C.M.A. 606 (1954). “By “willful” as I am using it in the instant case, I mean a knowing choice not to submit the accounts required, or a conscious election to render inaccurate accounts.”
Boyd v. Wilmington Trust Co., 630 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D. Del. 2009). “Criminal Statutes The civil cover sheet makes specific reference to statutes pertaining to embezzlement, theft, misuse of public funds, racketeering, and stolen property, and makes mention of Titles 12 and 15, but does not identify specific statutes under those Titles.”
United States v. Chester Fernando, 745 F.2d 1328 (10th Cir. 1984). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 643 , 644, 645, 646, 648, 650, 651.”
United States v. Duncan, 34 M.J. 1232 (1992). “OPINION OF THE COURT NAUGHTON, Senior Judge: Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was convicted by a general court-martial composed of members of conspiracy to obstruct justice, violation of a lawful general regulation, larceny (thirteen specifications), forgery, making a false…”
United States v. Duncan, 38 M.J. 476 (1993). “At trial, Duncan pleaded not guilty but was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, violation of a lawful general regulation, larceny (13 specifications), forgery, making a false claim (2 specifications), conduct unbecoming an officer, obstruction of justice, and failure to…”
Ross Packing Co. v. United States, 42 F. Supp. 932 (E.D. Wash. 1942). “In the Carriso case, there is a statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 643 , which makes specific provision for the refunding of ex-actions illegally imposed by the Collector of Customs.”
Carriso, Inc. v. United States, 106 F.2d 707 (9th Cir. 1939). “59 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 643 , reading as follows: “Whenever any fine, penalty, forfeiture, exaction, or charge arising under the laws relating to vessels or seamen has been paid to any collector of customs or consular officer, and application has been made within one year from such…”
Uberti v. Gorin (N.D. Cal. 2021). “§ 2 ; 18 U.S.C. § 643 (public money embezzlement); Section 2 1099 of California’s Government Code (prohibitions against incompatible offices); and Section 3 424 of California’s Penal Code (criminal negligence).”
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.