U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— PENAL PROVISIONS; FORFEITURES

47 U.S.C. § 501

General penalty

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this chapter, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this chapter punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1937–2021 · leading case: United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “(Both § 333 and § 301 are made punishable by 47 U.S.C. § 501 , which provides a maximum sentence of one year if the defendant has not previously been convicted under the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960). · cites it 2× “47 U. S. C. §§ 501 , 605; 18 U. S. C. § 371 .”
Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973). · cites it 2× “See 47 U. S. C. § 501 . Thus, the Federal Government specifically insulates the licensee from any real threat of economic competition.”
Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107 (1958). · cites it 2× “1100 , 47 U. S. C. § 501 . Additional violations are punishable by the same fine and not more than two years' imprisonment, or both.”
Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114 (1942). · cites it 2× “[15] § 501, 47 U.S.C. § 501 . MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.”
Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378 (1968). · cites it 2× “The Communications Act explicitly provides for penal sanctions, 47 U. S. C. § 501 , and some civil remedies might be implied as a matter of federal law, cf.”
United States of Am., Applicant-Appellee v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., Movant-Appellant, 531 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “This position seems triggered by the fear of resulting civil liability when and if the subscriber learns of the installation of the pen register and the telephone company’s assistive role in its installation, and possible criminal liability under the Federal Communications Act,…”
United States v. Polakoff, 112 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1940). · cites it 2× “For under 47 U.S.C.A. § 501 , any person who "willfully and knowingly" — as here — does a thing prohibited by the statute is guilty of an offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.”
United States v. Philip Charles Testa, 326 F.2d 730 (3rd Cir. 1964). · cites it 5× “In a brief hearing the Assistant United States Attorney asserted that since the questions “obviously” related to possible violation of 47 U.S.C. § 501 , the witness was immune to prosecution under 47 U.”
Kratz v. Kratz, 477 F. Supp. 463 (E.D. Pa. 1979). “Also, “willfully” as used in the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 501 (a forerunner of Title III), was defined by at least one court to mean “intentionally”.”
United States v. Charles v. Gris, 247 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1957). · cites it 2× “Indeed, Spindel testified with evident satisfaction that the wiretap functioned perfectly.”
Ivy Broad. Co., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & New York Tel. Co., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants, 391 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1968). “The Interstate Commerce Act explicitly subjects a user of services to penalties for inducing unlawful discrimination in his favor, 36 Stat.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
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.