18 U.S.C. § 654
Officer or employee of United States converting property of another
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongfully converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title or not more than the value of the money and property thus embezzled or converted, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the sum 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 40
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1931–2026 · leading case: United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) & Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261), 435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006).
United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) & Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261), 435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006). “”); 18 U.S.C. § 654 (“[wjhoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongfully converts to his own use the money or property of another.”
Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001). “§ 641 ; 18 U.S.C. § 654 ; 18 U.S.C. § 4 ; and 18 U.”
United States v. Salvatore Picardi, 950 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2020). “A jury found Salvatore Picardi guilty of one count of embezzlement by an officer or employee of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 . The district court sentenced Picardi to a term of eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of $100,000.”
Boyd v. Wilmington Trust Co., 630 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D. Del. 2009). “§ 653 20 , 18 U.S.C. § 654 21 , 18 U.S.C. § 1951 22 , and 18 U.”
United States v. Scott, 70 F.4th 846 (5th Cir. 2023). “§ 371 ; and one count of property conversion by a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 . Before sentencing, Scott’s Presentence Report (“PSR”) calculated his sentencing guidelines range at 188–235 months, based on enhancements 4 Case: 21-30501 Document: 00516785092…”
United States v. David Pfluger, 685 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2012). “§ 201 (c)(1)(B)), and one count of conversion of property while a public official (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 ). Pfluger moved to dismiss the indictment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, see 18 U.”
United States v. Bernette Floyd Jackson, 759 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1985). “§ 641 (1982) (“record, voucher, money or thing of value”), 18 U.S.C. § 654 (1982) (“money or property”), 18 U.”
United States v. Michael S. Cohen, 301 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2002). “Cohen was subsequently indicted on two counts of theft (one concerning the Ayubi case and one concerning the Idress case), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 ; two counts of obstruction of justice (again, one concerning the Ayubi case and one concerning the Idress case), in…”
United States v. Maryland Hall, 739 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1984). “WINTER, Circuit Judge: Maryland Hall appeals from a judgment entered after her conviction by a jury of wrongful conversion of property which came into her possession while she was acting as a United States Customs Inspector, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 (1982). 1 Judge…”
In Re Normano, 7 F. Supp. 329 (D. Mass. 1934). “§ 5273 (18 USCA § 654). The cause is before the court on admitted facts pleaded in the application and answer and the deposition of William Phillips, Under Secretary of State since March 6,1933.”
United States v. Anderson J. Coleman, 805 F.2d 474 (3rd Cir. 1986). “§ 1603 by lying to the grand jury and by instructing a witness not to tell the grand jury about certain transactions; and one count of illegal conversion to his own use of funds given him as payment for federal income tax in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654 . Coleman was sentenced…”
United States v. Marvina C. Benefield, 721 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1983). “Section 654 covers any money or property which comes into possession or control in the execution of the embezzler’s federal employment. Loewe, an employee of the United States Indian Service, embezzled two types of payments: payments due the United States Reclamation Service for…”
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.