18 U.S.C. § 644
Banker receiving unauthorized deposit of public money
Whoever, not being an authorized depositary of public moneys, knowingly receives from any disbursing officer, or collector of internal revenue, or other agent of the United States, any public money on deposit, or by way of loan or accommodation, with or without interest, or otherwise than in payment of a debt against the United States, or uses, transfers, converts, appropriates, or applies any portion of the public money for any purpose not prescribed by law is guilty of embezzlement and shall be fined under this title or not more than the amount so 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 not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: United States v. Furst, Sidney D.
United States v. Furst, Sidney D. (1989)
“The indictment, however, did not charge Furst with any crime with respect to the non-ERISA accounts and any wrongful acts of Furst as to those counts would not constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 644 . In step 2 Furst caused an ERISA account to purchase the appreciated stock…”
Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (2007)
“4 For example, 18 U.S.C. § 644 states: “Whoever, not being an authorized depository of public moneys, knowingly receives .”
United States v. S & Vee Cartage Company, Inc., Silverio Vitello AKA Sal Vitello, and Anna Vitello (1983)
“It was enacted along with two other new criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 644 (dealing with theft or embezzlement from employer benefit plans) and 18 U.”
Vierria v. California Highway Patrol (2009)
“Defendants argue, inter alia, (1) CHP and Castle are immune from the RICO claim under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and Vierria fails to allege sufficient facts to establish (2) Castle was a part of a RICO enterprise, (3) defendants engaged in any predicate acts of…”
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Frank Romano and Thomas Romano, Cross-Appellees. In Re United States of Ame (1984)
“§ 1343 ; theft and embezzlement from an employee pension fund in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 644 ; and making false statements to the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 26 U.”
United States v. Spector (1995)
“§ 1027 (1988) (ERISA) and 18 U.S.C. § 644 (1988). Among the violations under investigation were a false statement allegedly submitted to the department on January 20, 1988, and an act of embezzlement allegedly occurring on February 19,1988.”
United States v. Murray F. Hardesty (1997)
“Specifically, in count 1 Hardesty was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 644 with embezzling assets from a pension fund which was entrusted to his care.”
Boyd v. Wilmington Trust Co. (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. Paul F. Soares (1993)
“Soares also appeals on sufficiency of evidence grounds his conviction on count seven, the 18 U.S.C. § 644 embezzlement charge. We discuss each issue in turn.”
United States v. James M. Bartkus (1987)
“§ 371 ; (2) theft or embezzlement from an employee benefit plan in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 644 ; and (3) making false statements and concealing facts in documents required to be kept under ERISA in violation of 18 U.”
Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board (1973)
“18 U.S.C. §§ 644 , 656. . 35 U.S.C. §§ 78n, 78ff.”
United States v. Hardesty (1999)
“Specifically, in count 1, defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 644 with embezzling assets from a pension fund which was entrusted to his care.”
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.