U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE II— SPECIAL PROVISIONS › Part Part II— United States International Trade Commission

19 U.S.C. § 1341

Interference with functions of Commission

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Interfering with or influencing the Commission or its employees

It shall be unlawful for any person (1) to prevent or attempt to prevent, by force, intimidation, threat, or in any other manner, any member or employee of the commission from exercising the functions imposed upon the commission by this subtitle, or (2) to induce, or attempt to induce, by like means any such member or employee to make any decision or order, or to take any action, with respect to any matter within the authority of the commission.

(b) Penalty

Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(c) “Person” defined

As used in this section the term “person” includes an individual, corporation, association, partnership, or any other organization or group of individuals.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title III, § 341, 46 Stat. 707.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: United States v. Theodore, 354 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Theodore, 354 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003). “Defendant-appellant Thomas Ronald Theodore appeals from his conviction and sentence on nine counts of mail fraud, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1341 , and three counts of violating -the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.”
Midwest Heritage Bank, FSB v. Northway, 576 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1998). · cites it 2× “He urges Midwest's actions constitute mail fraud in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1341 . Midwest denies the allegations.”
Campbell v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 496 (W.D. Wis. 1985). “Each of the defendants was associated with the enterprise [of the association in fact] and participated in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of acts of mail fraud in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1341 , wire fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Svete, 565 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2009). “En banc, this court decided the question of whether the crime of mail fraud, which prohibits “any scheme or artifice to defraud” by use of the mail, 19 U.S.C. § 1341 , requires proof that the scheme be capable of deceiving a reasonably prudent person or whether schemes aimed at…”
McCormick v. Franklin Cnty. Court of Common Pleas Dom. Div. (S.D. Ohio 2020). “Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs’ RICO claim against Defendant Lu is based on the predicate crimes of mail or wire fraud under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, this claim is DISMISSED.”
United States v. Svete, 556 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2009). “En banc, this court decided the question of whether the crime of mail fraud, which prohibits "any scheme or artifice to defraud" by use of the mail, 19 U.S.C. § 1341 , requires proof that the scheme be capable of deceiving a reasonably prudent person or whether schemes aimed at…”
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.