18 U.S.C. § 669

Theft or embezzlement in connection with health care

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully embezzles, steals, or otherwise without authority converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner, or intentionally misapplies any of the moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property, or other assets of a health care benefit program, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $100 the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.(b) As used in this section, the term “health care benefit program” has the meaning given such term in section 24(b) of this title.(Added Pub. L. 104–191, title II, § 243(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2017.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: United States v. Graf
United States v. Graf (2010) ca9 · cites it 6× “After the month-and-a-half long jury trial in Los Angeles, Graf moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 29 challenging the ten counts charging misappropriation in connection with a health care benefit program in violation of 18…”
United States v. Ruth Whited (2002) ca3 · cites it 7× “Ruth Whited appeals from the District Court’s order sentencing her to prison and requiring her to make restitution for embezzling from a health care provider in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669 . Whited challenges the sufficiency of the charging indictment and the District Court’s…”
United States v. García-Pastrana (2009) ca1 · cites it 8× “22 Count 1 charged all Defendants with a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 669 , which prohibits the embezzlement or misapplication of funds of a “health care benefit program.”
United States v. Redcorn (2008) ca10 · cites it 4× “Redcorn were indicted on one count of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669 (for taking money from a health insurance company), four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Wheeler (2008) ca7 · cites it 4× “A jury convicted James Wheeler of embezzling, stealing or otherwise converting employee contributions to his company’s health insurance and 401 (k) funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 664. The district court sentenced him to concurrent 63 and 60 month sentences and three…”
United States v. Tkhilaishvili (2019) ca1 · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 669 (a) prohibits, inter alia, the knowing and willful embezzlement of "moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property, or other assets of a health care benefit program.”
United States v. Maynard (2020) ca10 · cites it 5× “, Maynard’s theft of TBGSI employee premium payments for health care), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 2. Lastly, the indictment included a forfeiture allegation pursuant to 21 U.”
United States v. Aimee Jones (2006) ca3 · cites it 3× “§ 1347 ), and one for theft ( 18 U.S.C. § 669 ) 7 which carry the same penalties.”
United States v. Phythian (2008) ca8 · cites it 3× “On February 22, 2006, a federal grand jury returned a nine-count indictment against Phythian charging her with embezzlement from healthcare providers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 24(b), money laundering in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Gierbolini-Rivera (2018) ca1 · cites it 2× “Gierbolini-Rivera ("Gierbolini") pled guilty to one count of theft in connection with health care, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669 (a), and to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
Baker v. Wentland (In Re Wentland) (2009) ohnb · cites it 3× “81 that is owed to Plaintiff for misapplication of health insurance premiums, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669 (a), is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(13).”
United States v. Ruff (2008) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 1347 , four counts of theft, embezzlement and conversion of property and assets of a health care benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669 , and four counts of money laundering, 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.