Aaron Scolnick v. United States

First Circuit

Aaron Scolnick v. United States

331 F.2d 598, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5433

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1964

Docket6217

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 598 (Aaron Scolnick v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Scolnick v. United States, 331 F.2d 598, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5433 (1st Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are fully set forth in the opinion below, United States v. Scolnick, D.Mass., 1963, 219 F.Supp. 408. We find no merit in the appeal. The endorsement and deposit for collection of a government check known to be issued by mistake in payment of an obligation already, in fact, satisfied is the presentation •of a false claim within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231. Cf. Dimmick v. United States, 9 Cir., 1902, 116 F. 825, cert. den. 189 U.S. 509, 23 S.Ct. 850, 47 L.Ed. 923. The court was not obliged to accept the defendant’s protestations of innocence. Not only was he the principal officer and stockholder ■of the payee corporation, but the proceeds -of the checks were disbursed by him in .satisfaction of a corporate debt owed to liis father, and for wage obligations the ■nonpayment of which might have resulted in defendant’s incarceration, both reasons to suppose that he had been aware of the accounts receivable picture. Nor were direct personal benefits to the defendant required. Murray & Sorenson, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 119, 42 A.L.R.2d 628.

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are fully set forth in the opinion below, United States v. Scolnick, D.Mass., 1963, 219 F.Supp. 408. We find no merit in the appeal. The endorsement and deposit for collection of a government check known to be issued by mistake in payment of an obligation already, in fact, satisfied is the presentation •of a false claim within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231. Cf. Dimmick v. United States, 9 Cir., 1902, 116 F. 825, cert. den. 189 U.S. 509, 23 S.Ct. 850, 47 L.Ed. 923. The court was not obliged to accept the defendant’s protestations of innocence. Not only was he the principal officer and stockholder ■of the payee corporation, but the proceeds -of the checks were disbursed by him in .satisfaction of a corporate debt owed to liis father, and for wage obligations the ■nonpayment of which might have resulted in defendant’s incarceration, both reasons to suppose that he had been aware of the accounts receivable picture. Nor were direct personal benefits to the defendant required. Murray & Sorenson, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 119, 42 A.L.R.2d 628.

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F.2d 598, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-scolnick-v-united-states-ca1-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack