He omitted to tell the ethics officer that Abramoff was arguably doing business, or seeking to do business, with the GSA. This failure to include the pertinent facts in his ethics inquiry could not form the basis for a false statement prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1). When it comes to a “concealment” false statement, the government must prove that the defendant had a duty to disclose the facts that were concealed.

Could an aggressive prosecutor pursue the contractor for a criminal false statement?Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully – (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title [and/or] imprisoned not more than five years. “Material” is defined as having the propensity to influence the government; actual influence is not required.

an associated policy revision involves the use of compliance monitors. Under the Biden Administration, DOJ likely will more often seek to impose corporate monitorships than it had under the Trump Administration, which also will increase the costs and risks to such entities.The DOJ hopes the changes will “empower” CCOs to regularly review and audit their compliance programs for factors the department will evaluate — such as how payment activities are monitored, the behavior of senior leadership, how disciplinary decisions are made for rulebreakers, how compliance risks are measured and identified and so on. However, it is undeniable that with that “empowerment” comes the associated risk of a felony prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001, 1517 and 1519.DOJ increasingly using certification for corporate officers in enforcement actionsIt appears the DOJ derived its CCO-centered approach from its requirement that chief financial officers and CEOs certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001 that they will satisfy their financial disclosure obligations under agreements with the government. For example, Deutsche Bank’s CEO and CFO were required to sign a disclosure certification as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the government. Part of the certification involved “any and all Disclosable Information that has been identified through the Company’s compliance and controls program, whistleblower channel, internal audit reports, due diligence procedures, investigation process, or other processes.”Compliance certification and enforcement have continued to grow in the DOJ’s toolkit. This has been ongoing since Sarbanes-Oxley, as Norman Veasey, former chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, explains in greater detail, pointing to the increased number of formal complaints, sanctions and convictions against general counsel. For example, in 2019, civil monetary penalty charges were brought against the former general counsel of Rabobank by the Office of the Comptrol

US v. Manning, No. 07-5035, 5/16/08 - The Tenth Circuit reverses the dismissal of a prosecution for making a false statement pursuant to 18 USC § 1001. The dismissal had been based on the “judicial function” exception in § 1001(b).The defendant forgot to mention the $40K he had in a 401(k) when he submitted his financial affidavit to probation after he pled guilty to misappropriating funds as a fiduciary.

However, those accused of making misrepresentations in order to receive government funds may find refuge in a more narrow view of the materiality requirement.Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 based on a January 24, 2017 interview with the FBI. At the time of the guilty plea, both the government and the defense agreed that Flynn’s false statements were material.

However, those accused of making misrepresentations in order to receive government funds may find refuge in a more narrow view of the materiality requirement.Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 based on a January 24, 2017 interview with the FBI. At the time of the guilty plea, both the government and the defense agreed that Flynn’s false statements were material.

ch forgiveness is being soughtHas and will submit to the lender information consistent with what it has and will submit to the IRS, state and workforce agenciesAgrees to provide additional information where requested by the SBA for purposes of evaluating its eligibility for the loan and loan forgiveness or risk being found ineligible for the loan and denied loan forgiveness.Significantly, the form also requires the borrower to certify that it has provided accurate and complete information and done so in good faith, without any intent to mislead, and that it is aware of the significant penalties it may be subject to in the event it is determined to have failed to comply with these requirements:The information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and correct in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain forgiveness of an SBA-guaranteed loan is punishable under the law, including 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a Federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than 30 years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000.Whether and to what extent a borrower may be eligible for and receive forgiveness for its PPP loan clearly depends on the information provided in the forgiveness application and the initial loan application. This information must be accurate and complete as the application conditions forgiveness on whether the borrower provided true and correct information and documentation its PPP loan application and this forgiveness application for all “material” aspects of the applications.

The certification further notes that if the funds are “knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the federal government may hold me legally liable, such as for charges of fraud.” The certification further states that: “knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000.” Small Business Administration, Interim Final Rule (proposed April 28, 2020) (to be codified at 13 CFR pt. 120, 121 (available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Interim-Final-Rule-on-Requirements-for-Promissory-Notes-Authorizations-Affiliation-and-Eligibility.pdf).Id.

OSHA’s anti-retaliation rules are intended to encourage employers to report workplace injuries despite the fact that the records will be published online and accessible by the public. Additionally, the final rule may increase employers’ exposure to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements to the government. In December 2015, the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor jointly issued a memo indicating that the agencies would “increase the frequency and effectiveness of criminal prosecutions of worker endangerment violations” with a “renewed” commitment.

Will Former National Security Adviser Flynn Serve Time?United States v. Michael T. FlynnOn Friday, December 1, 2017, former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn (ret.) pleaded guilty to an Information charging him with one count of making false statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 in connection with the Government’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. A section 1001 charge carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.