FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 211
Offenses begun in one district and completed in another
18 U.S.C. § 3237
Title18 — Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter211 — JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This text of 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (Offenses begun in one district and completed in another) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
18 U.S.C. § 3237.
Text
(a)Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.
Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person moves.
(b)Notwithstanding subsection (a), where an offense is described in section 7203 of the Internal Rev
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
535 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Wills
346 F.3d 476 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Smith
452 F.3d 323 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Jack L. Chestnut
533 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1976)
United States v. James Romans
823 F.3d 299 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Golb
69 F.3d 1417 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Lanoue
137 F.3d 656 (First Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Jensen
93 F.3d 667 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Edwin David Wood, II
364 F.3d 704 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
Rocha v. United States
288 F.2d 545 (Ninth Circuit, 1961)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio M. ANGOTTI, Defendant-Appellant
105 F.3d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Holcombe
883 F.3d 12 (Second Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Thompson
896 F.3d 155 (Second Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Collins
372 F.3d 629 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Nicholas Dekunchak
467 F.2d 432 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Imperial Meat Co. v. United States
316 F.2d 435 (Tenth Circuit, 1963)
United States v. Strain
396 F.3d 689 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. James Hull
419 F.3d 762 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)
Claudio Carranza-Chaidez v. United States
414 F.2d 503 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Frederick Obak
884 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826; Pub. L. 85–595, Aug. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 512; Pub. L. 89–713, §2, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1108; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §162, July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 697; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §1204(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2152; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on section 103 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §42, 36 Stat. 1100).
Section was completely rewritten to clarify legislative intent and in order to omit special venue provisions from many sections.
The phrase "committed in more than one district" may be comprehensive enough to include "begun in one district and completed in another", but the use of both expressions precludes any doubt as to legislative intent.
Rules 18–22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are in accord with this section.
The last paragraph of the revised section was added to meet the situation created by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Johnson, 1944, 65 S. Ct. 249, 89 L. Ed. 236, which turned on the absence of a special venue provision in the Dentures Act, section 1821 of this revision. The revised section removes all doubt as to the venue of continuing offenses and makes unnecessary special venue provisions except in cases where Congress desires to restrict the prosecution of offenses to particular districts as in section 1073 of this revision.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 7203 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Section 7201 or 7206(1), (2), or (5) of such Code, referred to in subsec. (b), are classified respectively to sections 7201 and 7206(1), (2), (5) of Title 26.
Amendments
1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954".
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–473 inserted "or the importation of an object or person into the United States" and ", or imported object or person" in second par.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–369 substituted "venue for prosecution of an offense" for "an offense involves use of the mails and is an offense" and inserted "is based solely on a mailing to the Internal Revenue Service".
1966—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–713 inserted reference to offenses described in section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
1958—Pub. L. 85–595 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1966 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 89–713 effective Nov. 2, 1966, see section 6 of Pub. L. 89–713, set out as a note under section 6091 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Based on section 103 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §42, 36 Stat. 1100).
Section was completely rewritten to clarify legislative intent and in order to omit special venue provisions from many sections.
The phrase "committed in more than one district" may be comprehensive enough to include "begun in one district and completed in another", but the use of both expressions precludes any doubt as to legislative intent.
Rules 18–22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are in accord with this section.
The last paragraph of the revised section was added to meet the situation created by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Johnson, 1944, 65 S. Ct. 249, 89 L. Ed. 236, which turned on the absence of a special venue provision in the Dentures Act, section 1821 of this revision. The revised section removes all doubt as to the venue of continuing offenses and makes unnecessary special venue provisions except in cases where Congress desires to restrict the prosecution of offenses to particular districts as in section 1073 of this revision.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 7203 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Section 7201 or 7206(1), (2), or (5) of such Code, referred to in subsec. (b), are classified respectively to sections 7201 and 7206(1), (2), (5) of Title 26.
Amendments
1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954".
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–473 inserted "or the importation of an object or person into the United States" and ", or imported object or person" in second par.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–369 substituted "venue for prosecution of an offense" for "an offense involves use of the mails and is an offense" and inserted "is based solely on a mailing to the Internal Revenue Service".
1966—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–713 inserted reference to offenses described in section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
1958—Pub. L. 85–595 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1966 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 89–713 effective Nov. 2, 1966, see section 6 of Pub. L. 89–713, set out as a note under section 6091 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 U.S.C. § 3237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/18/3237.