Green regularly wrote herself checks from the account to withdraw sums similar in amount to the VA payments. In February 2016—approximately four-and-a-half years after the VA made its final deposit—the government filed an Information charging Green with willfully and knowingly embezzling, stealing, and converting money of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641. Green entered into a plea agreement and agreed to plead guilty to stealing $35,774 between January 10, 2009 and August 2, 2011.
There was no evidence of any notice to the defendants that they were not entitled to use the money, or continue to receive benefits based on the death of the veteran.United States v. Ligon, 440 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006)In a case involving theft of government property, the government must prove that the stolen item has “value.” 18 U.S.C. § 641. The government failed to prove that the stolen Indian artifacts had value.
A recent example demonstrates the continued viability of Ex Post Facto protection. A defendant is convicted of defrauding the United States (18 U.S.C. § 641) by securing federal FEMA funds by falsely claiming he resided in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The defendant’s criminal conduct was complete in September 2005.
“[G]overnment agencies have strong interests – both regulatory and economic – in controlling whether, when, and how to disclose confidential information relating to their contemplated rules” (here, CMS’s rules about reimbursement rates). In addition, the court upheld the convictions under the statute prohibiting conversion of federal property (18 U.S.C. § 641), ruling that the government’s confidential information constituted a “thing of value.”Judge Kearse dissented because she did not consider the agency’s predecisional regulatory information to be “property” or a “thing of value” under Title 18.
50 §§ 421-426: Amended the National Security Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence officers, agents, informants and sources. Anyone who violates this law, known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, is subject to imprisonment of not more than 3 years and/or a fine of not more Than $15,000.18 U.S.C. § 641: Prohibits the conversion of government property or records for one’s own use or the use of another person. This statute, which is seldom ever used, provides a penalty of not more than ten years and/or a fine.EspionageThere is a public perception that most disclosures of classification information will be prosecuted under the WWI Espionage Act of 1917 which is codified and amended in 18 U.S.C. §§ 793-798.
6(a) and (b). The federal bank regulatory agencies have indicated that any person who discloses or uses CSI except as expressly permitted by the appropriate federal bank regulatory agency or as provided in such agency’s regulations may be subject to the criminal penalties provided under 18 U.S.C. § 641, which criminalizes theft of records belonging to any agency of the United States. See FDIC FIL-13-2005, Interagency Advisory on the Confidentiality of the Supervisory Rating and Other Nonpublic Supervisory Information.
United States v. Procknow, No. 14-1398. Procknow was convicted of theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and aggravated identify theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), related to his filing of fraudulent tax returns. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress arguing the evidence obtained after police officers’ warrantless entry into his hotel room should have been suppressed and evidence obtained by the grand jury subpoena following the withdrawal of the IRS civil summons should have been suppressed.
The 2001 Sentencing Commission amendment 591 and § 1B1.2 make clear that only the offense of conviction may be considered, not the actual conduct, in deciding which guideline to use. Here Mr. Kupfer was convicted of stealing government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. The statutory index sends Mr. Kupfer's offense to § 2B1.1.
The Bush administration had the fewest overall IRS prosecutions while such prosecutions began to rise shortly after Obama assumed office, rising to 2010 prosecutions in 2013.Alabama sported the two top U.S. district court jurisdictions (Middle and Southern) for the most IRS prosecutions while one of Mississippi’s jurisdictions (Southern) came in third.The following are the top ten lead charges in IRS prosecutions:• Fraud and false statements (26 U.S.C. 7206); • Conspiracy to defraud the Government claims (18 U.S.C. 286); • Attempt to evade or defeat tax (26 U.S.C. 7201); • False, fictitious or fraudulent claims (18 U.S.C. 257); • Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud U.S. (18 U.S.C. 371) • Public money, property or records (18 U.S.C. 641); • Fraud or related activity – id documents (18 U.S.C. 1028) • Laundering of monetary instruments (18 U.S.C. 1956); • Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement (31 U.S.C. 6324); • Fraud by wire, radio, or television (18 U.S.C. 1343).Of these charges, the one showing the greatest increase over the past year was “conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud U.S.”—the same offense that has seen an 888 percent increase in prosecutions over the past five years, according to TRAC.One piece of personal, not legal, advice: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
An example of the latter situation could be the theft by an employee of a federally funded organization of a $6,000 automobile acquired independently of the Federal funds. While an 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft) prosecution could not be maintained in the hypothetical described above, case law now suggests that the hypothetical could violated 18 U.S.C. § 666.”In addition to this uncertainty, the worse problem with Section 666 is that it can be, and has been, used to conduct political witch hunts with little apparent limitation.For example, former White House Deputy Karl Rove pressured Federal prosecutors to go after former Alabama Gov. Dan Siegleman with this statute.