18 U.S.C. § 668
Theft of major artwork
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–294 designated first and second pars. beginning with quotation mark as pars. (1) and (2), respectively, and made technical amendment to provisions appearing in original.
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–294 effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: United States v. McCarty
United States v. McCarty (2010)
“McCarty appeals his conviction and within-Guidelines sentence of forty-six months’ imprisonment for knowingly stealing two cultural heritage objects, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (b). Specifically, McCarty alleges six general errors: (1) the district court improperly…”
Yates v. United States (2015)
“§ 57b-1(c)(authorizing investigative demands for "documentary material or tangible things"); 18 U.S.C. § 668 (a)(1)(D)(defining "museum" as entity that owns "tangible objects that are exhibited to the public"); 28 U.”
United States v. Ernest Medford, in 98-1647 United States of America v. George Csizmazia, in 98-1648 (1999)
“§ 371 ; theft of objects of cultural heritage, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (b)(1); and receipt and concealment of stolen objects of cultural heritage, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Spiegelman (1998)
“Spiegelman argues also that the fact that sentencing for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 668 , which makes the theft of objects of cultural heritage a crime, is subject to Section 2B1.”
United States v. Russ Pritchard, Jr. (2003)
“was convicted of theft from a museum for his involvement in the misappropriation of a Civil War officer’s uniform in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (1994). At issue is whether the Hunt-Phelan Home Foundation, from whose care the uniform was taken, was a “museum” for purposes of…”
United States v. Pritchard (2003)
“was convicted of theft from a museum for his involvement in the misappropriation of a Civil War officer’s uniform in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (1994). At issue is whether the Hunt-Phelan Home Foundation, from whose care the uniform was taken, was a “museum” for purposes of…”
Jones v. General Electric Company (2019)
“§ 666 (Chapter 31—Embezzlement and Theft, Section 666—Theft or Bribery concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds); • 18 U.S.C. § 668 (Chapter 31—Embezzlement and Theft, Section 668—Theft of Major Artwork); • 18 U.”
Rouhi v. Kettler (2020)
“First, Rouhi asserts claims under five provisions of the United States Criminal Code: 18 U.S.C. § 668 (theft of major artwork from a museum); 18 U.”
United States v. O'Higgins (1998)
“18U.S.C. § 668 provides: (a) Definitions: In this section- (1) "museum” means an organized and permanent institution, the activities of which affect interstate commerce, that- (A) is situated in the United States; (B) is established for an essentially educational or aesthetic…”
United States v. Okelberry (2000)
“, the defendant orally admitted to facts constituting a violation of 16 USC § 668 (a). He also accepted and executed a six page statement in advance of plea of guilty, which contained a statement of facts constituting admissions of the offense (¶ 12(a)).”
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.