FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 47
Possession of false papers to defraud United States
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
18 U.S.C. § 1002 (Possession of false papers to defraud United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Seth Murdock
398 F.3d 491 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Latroy D. Ray, Johnny Lee May, and Boyd McChristion
828 F.2d 399 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Larry Weaver and Mark Schmanke, United States of America v. Everett Decker, Jerald Jessup and Michael Bailey
882 F.2d 1128 (Seventh Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Mei-Fen Chen
913 F.2d 183 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Eunice Arnetta Harris Sparks
67 F.3d 1145 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. James Vincent Wells
163 F.3d 889 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidney C. LAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant
26 F.3d 1523 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)
O'Brien Gear & Machine Co. v. United States
591 F.2d 666 (Court of Claims, 1979)
United States v. Emil F. Wiley
979 F.2d 365 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Councilman
373 F.3d 197 (First Circuit, 2004)
Mendez v. Barr
960 F.3d 80 (Second Circuit, 2020)
Resendez v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 283 (Federal Claims, 2010)
Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc.
990 F. Supp. 48 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
In re Hidetoshi Cho
77 A.D.3d 155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
United States v. Boll (In Re Boll)
82 B.R. 107 (D. North Dakota, 1987)
State of Tex. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ALLIED EMP.
791 F. Supp. 1154 (W.D. Texas, 1992)
In Re Izquierdo
34 A.3d 1231 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2012)
United States v. Electrodyne Systems Corp.
28 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D. New Jersey, 1998)
United States v. Moser
168 F.R.D. 171 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
United States v. Lazar
347 F. Supp. 225 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §74 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §30, 35 Stat. 1094).
Words "or any agency thereof" after "United States" and word "agency" after "any" and before "officer," were inserted to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definition of "agency" in section 6 of this title.)
The maximum fine of "$10,000" was substituted for "$500" in order to conform punishment provisions to those of comparable sections. (See section 1001 of this title.)
Minor verbal change was made.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §74 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §30, 35 Stat. 1094).
Words "or any agency thereof" after "United States" and word "agency" after "any" and before "officer," were inserted to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definition of "agency" in section 6 of this title.)
The maximum fine of "$10,000" was substituted for "$500" in order to conform punishment provisions to those of comparable sections. (See section 1001 of this title.)
Minor verbal change was made.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".