21 U.S.C. § 1907

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter:(1) Entity

The term “entity” means a partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, organization, network, group, or subgroup, or any form of business collaboration.

(2) Foreign person

The term “foreign person” means any citizen or national of a foreign state or any entity not organized under the laws of the United States, but does not include a foreign state.

(3) Narcotics trafficking

The term “narcotics trafficking” means any illicit activity to cultivate, produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, finance, or transport narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or listed chemicals, or otherwise endeavor or attempt to do so, or to assist, abet, conspire, or collude with others to do so.

(4) Narcotic drug; controlled substance; listed chemical

The terms “narcotic drug”, “controlled substance”, and “listed chemical” have the meanings given those terms in section 802 of this title.

(5) Person

The term “person” means an individual or entity.

(6) United States person

The term “United States person” means any United States citizen or national, permanent resident alien, an entity organized under the laws of the United States (including its foreign branches), or any person within the United States.

(7) Significant foreign narcotics trafficker

The term “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” means any foreign person that plays a significant role in international narcotics trafficking, that the President has determined to be appropriate for sanctions pursuant to this chapter, and that the President has publicly identified in the report required under subsection (b) or (h)(1) of section 1903 of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–120, title VIII, § 808, Dec. 3, 1999, 113 Stat. 1632.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Zevallos v. Obama, 10 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D.D.C. 2014).
Zevallos v. Obama, 10 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 4× “” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (7). The newspaper articles further corroborate the conclusion that Mr.”
Zevallos v. Obama Ex Rel. United States, 793 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Kingpin Act specifically targets persons that “play[ ] a significant role in international narcotics trafficking,” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (7), as “significant foreign narcotics traffickers,” id.”
Keith Stansell v. Mercurio Int'l S.A., 704 F.3d 910 (11th Cir. 2013). “21 U.S.C. § 1907 (7). 4 . In relevant part, § 598.”
Samark Lopez Bello v. Andrea Gacki, 94 F.4th 1067 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “See 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (3). 8 The public is on notice that Kingpin Act designation may occur even if the designee lacks a specific mens rea.”
Sulemane v. Lew (D.D.C. 2019). “See 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (3). In this case, however, the Court concludes there is substantial evidence of both.”
Joumaa v. Mnuchin (D.D.C. 2019). “2 See 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (7); 31 C.F.R. § 598.314 (a), (b)(3).”
United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez (D.D.C. 2020). “” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (2). 2 The defendant was arrested less than two weeks after the indictment was filed when, on February 26, 2020, she came to this Court to visit her brother, who is a defendant in a criminal case also pending, see United States v.”
United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez (D.D.C. 2020). “” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (2). 2 the Kingpin Act. See Indictment at 1, ECF No.”
United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez (D.D.C. 2020). “” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (2). 2 inspection. See Def.”
United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez (D.D.C. 2020). “” 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (2). 4 narcotics trafficker known as [CJNG], and/or being controlled or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, [CJNG],” without first obtaining the required license from OFAC; (2) “engaged in transactions or dealings to evade and avoid” the Kingpin Act’s…”
Cuara R. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D. Utah 2023). “§ 7323 (“Hatch Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (“narcotics trafficking”), 21 U.”
Eteros Techs. USA, Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025). “§ 863 (f)(1) does not per se constitute a violation of either 21 U.S.C. § 1907 or 21 U.S.C. § 841 ,” and that (2) CBP will refrain from taking actions that contravene judicial opinions like Eteros I and internal agency rulings.”
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.