Whoever, being a president, director, officer, or manager of any firm, association, or corporation engaged in commerce as a common carrier, or whoever, being an employee of such common carrier riding in or upon any railroad car, motortruck, steamboat, vessel, aircraft or other vehicle of such carrier moving in interstate commerce, embezzles, steals, abstracts, or willfully misapplies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, securities, property, or assets of such firm, association, or corporation arising or accruing from, or used in, such commerce, in whole or in part, or willfully or knowingly converts the same to his own use or to the use of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The offense shall be deemed to have been committed not only in the district where the violation first occurred but also in any district in which the defendant may have taken or had possession of such moneys, funds, credits, securities, property or assets.
A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Robert Gregg, 612 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1979).
· cites it 5× “18 U.S.C. § 660 (1976). The first count charged all defendants with conspiracy to embezzle, steal and misapply funds of REA Express, Inc.”
United States v. Frederick Martin Price, 783 F.2d 1132 (4th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 4× “ERVIN, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a conviction for conversion of the property of a common carrier used in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 660 . Frederick Martin Price was charged in a three count indictment with theft from an interstate shipment,…”
United States v. Paul Levine, 658 F.2d 113 (3rd Cir. 1981).
· cites it 2× “In March 1980 the government brought a nine-count indictment against appellant Paul Levine, alleging misapplication of funds from the Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 660 . 1 Levine moved to dismiss the indict *115 ment on the ground that the five…”
California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949).
· cites it 2× “And when state enforcement mechanisms so helpful to federal officials are to be excluded, Congress may say so, as in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.”
United States v. Cook, 384 U.S. 257 (1966).
· cites it 3× “The question presented is whether 18 U. S. C. § 660 (1964 ed.), which prohibits certain embezzlements by employees of “any firm, association, or corporation engaged in commerce as a common carrier,” 1 applies to the *258 conduct of an employee of an individual doing business as…”
United States v. Ronald Lee Tye, 519 F.2d 586 (10th Cir. 1975).
· cites it 16× “Ronald Lee Tye appeals from his conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. § 660 . The facts in the case are undisputed.”
United States v. William Ruffin, 613 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1979).
“1979), where Judge Timbers stated: Under 18 U.S.C. § 660 (1976), in order for a person to be charged as a principal, he must hold the position of president, director, officer, or manager of a carrier engaged in interstate commerce.”
United States v. Gary Gillion, 704 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2012).
“§ 371 , and eight counts of embezzling from a common carrier, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 660 . On April 5, 2011, a grand jury issued an eight-count superseding indictment, charging Gillion with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
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.