18 U.S.C. § 653
Disbursing officer misusing public funds
Whoever, being a disbursing officer of the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or a person acting as such, in any manner converts to his own use, or loans with or without interest, or deposits in any place or in any manner, except as authorized by law, any public money intrusted to him; or, for any purpose not prescribed by law, withdraws from the Treasury or any authorized depositary, or transfers, or applies, any portion of the public money intrusted to him, is guilty of embezzlement of the money so converted, loaned, deposited, withdrawn, transferred, or applied, and shall be fined under this title or not more than the amount embezzled, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the amount embezzled is $1,000 or less, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1931–2023 · leading case: United States v. William v. Toney, 27 F.3d 1245 (7th Cir. 1994).
United States v. William v. Toney, 27 F.3d 1245 (7th Cir. 1994). “2d 411 (1973), where coercion was raised as a defense to misapplication of federally insured bank funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 653 , a crime requiring only a showing of “reckless disregard,” coercion was an affirmative defense.”
United States v. Harrison, 4 M.J. 332 (1978). “Opinion of the Court COOK, Judge: Appellant was tried by a general court-martial for larceny (Charge I), embezzlement (charged under 18 U.S.C. § 653 ; Charge II), and signing false official records (Additional Charge, 6 specifications), in violation of Articles 121, 134, and…”
Boyd v. Wilmington Trust Co., 630 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D. Del. 2009). “§ 652 19 , 18 U.S.C. § 653 20 , 18 U.S.C. § 654 21 , 18 U.”
Collier v. Vaccaro, 51 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1931). “§ 5272 (18 USCA § 653); 17 Ops. Attys. Gen. 184. In this ease he may, and no doubt will, give consideration to the contention that accused, in attempting to apprehend Price, was oper *21 ating under instructions of Ms superior and that he had been sent to work in Canada with the…”
Ex Parte Davis, 54 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1931). “of persons committing manslaughter, was the Secretary of State authorized to order the petitioner delivered to the Mexican government for trial upon the charge of murder? While it is uniformly held that a government may surrender a fugitive from justice for trial notwithstanding…”
Dean R. Hansberry v. United States, 295 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1961). “This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of the district court adjudging appellant guilty of embezzling public funds while he was a disbursing officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 653 . Jurisdiction below rested on 18 U.”
Ormsby v. United States Internal Revenue Serv. (E.D. Mich. 2023). “Plaintiff brings his case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 653 , “disbursing officer misusing public funds,” and 18 U.”
United States v. Matoka, 16 C.M.A. 608 (1967). “The conversion offense was laid under Article 134 of the Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 934 , and the specification alleged the act as a violation of 18 USC § 653 . On this appeal, *609 the accused contends the wrongdoing of which he was convicted does not violate Section 653.”
Patel v. Smith (E.D.N.Y 2022). “For example, Petitioner alleges: 18 U.S.C.A § 653 – GROSSLY EGREGIOUS MALFEASANCE IN VIOLATION OF DISBURSING OFFICER MISUSING PUBLIC FUNDS: Officers engaged in insurrection and rebellion through FRAUD & DECEIPT [sic], by committing misprision of felony in violation of accessory…”
Patel v. Smith (E.D.N.Y 2022). “For example, Petitioner alleges: 18 U.S.C.A § 653 – GROSSLY EGREGIOUS MALFEASANCE IN VIOLATION OF DISBURSING OFFICER MISUSING PUBLIC FUNDS: Officers engaged in insurrection and rebellion through FRAUD & DECEIPT [sic], by committing misprision of felony in violation of accessory…”
United States v. Montemayor Seguy, 329 F. Supp. 2d 871 (S.D. Tex. 2004). “” 18 U.S.C.S. § 653 . If not precisely the same, the American law is substantially similar to the Mexican statutes in Montemayor’s charges.”
Garnishment Under the Child Support Enf't Act of Comp. Payable by the Dep't of Vets. Affairs (OLC 1989). “” Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 653 pro hibits any “disbursing officer o f the United States” from, inter alia, “trans ferring], or apply[ing], any portion of the public money intrusted to him” for “any purpose not prescribed by law.”
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.