1. 1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Chapter 12 United States Criminal Code: Offenses Against Persons and Property Criminal Law Ninth Edition

2. 2 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Introduction Federal crimes are enacted by Congress and defined in the United States Code. Common law is not the origin of federal law. Federal laws are purely statutory. This means that courts, when interpreting federal laws, must decide what Congress intended by the passage of the law. 12.1

3. 3 Definitions of Crime—Source of Law The federal government’s powers are strictly enumerated in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Federal criminal laws must be associated with one of these specifically enumerated powers. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

4. 4 Definitions of Crime—Source of Law Proponents of the “federalization” of criminal law argue that federal law enforcement and prosecutors have the jurisdiction and resources necessary to combat crime that is increasingly nation and even international in scope. Opponents of the proliferation of federal laws argue that the federal government is usurping state authority in deciding what should and what should not be criminal. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

5. 5 Definitions of Crime—Source of Law Federal crimes can be found in the United States Code. Most federal crimes can be found in title 18, although they also can be found in title 42. Federal crimes are prosecuted by U.S. District Attorneys in U.S. District Courts. There are 94 District Courts Organized into 12 circuits Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

6. 6 Definitions of Crime—Source of Law Appeals from District Courts are head in U.S. Courts of Appeal. There are 13 Courts of Appeal (one for each circuit and one special federal circuit). Appeals from a Court of Appeal may be heard by the Supreme Court. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

7. 7 Definitions of Crime—Source of Law Although the Supreme Court is the law of the land and governs all federal courts as well as state courts, lower-level federal courts have more limited jurisdiction. A holding from a District Court has only persuasive authority over other districts. The same is true for the Courts of Appeals. Disagreement among the Circuit Courts is one reason the Supreme Court accepts a case. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

8. 8 Constitutional Challenges The Constitution protects us against laws that abridge our freedoms. No federal law can be vague, punish behavior after the fact (ex post facto), or infringe on freedom of expression, association, or religion. The most common constitutional challenges are: Vagueness and overbreadth Ex post facto Infringements upon 1 st Amendment rights of expression, association, and religion. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

9. 9 Constitutional Challenges United States v. Fowler The challenge was that the federal government had no jurisdiction to pass drug laws, which are the province of the police power of the state. Fowler was not successful in his challenge. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.1

10. 10 Principles of Criminal Liability In order to find culpability, the federal prosecutor must prove both the actus reus and mens rea of the crime. Since federal criminal law is purely statutory the elements of the crime and principles of criminal liability must be defined statutorily. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

11. 11 Parties The federal code abolishes the distinction between principals and accessories. Anyone who commits an offense or “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission” is punished as a principal. In order to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting under the statute, the government must show that the underlying offense has occurred. The government must also demonstrate that the defendant associated with the criminal venture, purposely participated in the criminal venture, and sought by his or her actions to make the venture succeed. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

12. 12 Parties The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals added that the aiding and abetting standard has two prongs—association and participation. To prove association, the state must show that the defendant shared the principal’s criminal intent. To show participation, there must be evidence that the defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct or overt act, designed to aid in the success of the venture. To prove this affirmative conduct or overt act, “a high level of activity need not be shown, although mere presence and guilt by association are insufficient. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

13. 13 Accessory After the Fact Federal law recognizes accessory after the fact as a separate crime. The federal statute that provides a penalty for one convicted of the offense of accessory after the fact states that: Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

14. 14 Accessory After the Fact A federal circuit court declared that a defendant who is accused of being an accessory after the fact must be shown to have had actual knowledge of each element of the underlying offense. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

15. 15 Elements of a Crime Federal crimes, as state crimes, consist of A criminal act The requisite state of mind Causation Concurrence Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

16. 16 Causation Federal courts apply the “but for” test when considering the causation element of the criminal offense. To prove this element, the government must show that, but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm would not have occurred. To rebut this argument, the defendant introduces evidence to show that the harm would have occurred in any event, regardless of the defendant's conduct. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

17. 17 Causation United States v. Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. In order to prove that the defendant’s conduct was illegal cause, that is, the proximate cause, of a harm, so as to prove the causation element of the criminal offense, the government must prove that the harm was foreseeable and the natural result of the conduct. Where the “but for” relationship exist between the defendant’s conduct and a harm, the defendant may yet escape criminal liability for the offense containing the causation element if the harmful result is so remote or accidental in its manner of occurrence as to make it unjust to hold the defendant liable for it. This is proximate cause. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

18. 18 Capacity and Defenses Federal defendants may argue that they might have committed the acts that were alleged, but that they had either an excuse or justification for their actions. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

19. 19 Infancy Title 18, chapter 4032 of the United States Code, titled “Juvenile Delinquency,” defines the procedure for disposing of juvenile cases in federal court. A juvenile is defined as a person who has not attained his or her 18th birthday. It is a policy of the federal government to surrender jurisdiction in juvenile cases to the appropriate legal authorities of the state. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

20. 20 Infancy Title 18 § 5032 specifically provides that the proceedings shall not be in a U.S. Court unless the Attorney General certifies through the appropriate District Court of the United States that: The juvenile court or other appropriate court of the state does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, The State does not have available programs and services adequate for the needs of the juveniles, or The offense charged is a crime of violence that is a felony or offense described in specific Sections of the federal law under title 21, and there is a substantial federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

21. 21 Infancy If the juvenile is not surrendered to state authorities, the case is processed as provided in chapter 4032 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. If the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act after his or her sixteenth birthday that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony offense that involves actual or threatened force against another, then the case may be directed to the appropriate District Court of the United States for criminal prosecution. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

22. 22 Infancy The purpose of this chapter of the U.S. Code is to remove juveniles from the adult criminal justice system and be helpful and rehabilitative, rather than punitive, and to reduce to some extent the stigma of criminal conviction. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

23. 23 Mental Impairment Like many states, the Federal law has changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to the “guilty but insane” finding. Following the jury’s verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” in the John Hinckley Jr. case, both the House and Senate received proposals to modify or completely abolish the insanity defense. In the July 1982, the full Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings on proposed legislation. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

24. 24 Mental Impairment In 1986, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1986. The federal law states: Affirmative Defense It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. Burden of Proof The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

25. 25 Mental Impairment One of the key factors in this federal law is that it shifts the burden of the insanity defense to the defendant. The defendant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his “sever mental disease or defect” caused him to not appreciate the nature and quality of his wrongful acts. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

26. 26 Mental Impairment The provisions of the Insanity Defense Reform Act, requiring a defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence, were challenged as being unconstitutional. The courts agreed that the provisions of the act that shifted the affirmative defense to insanity to the defendant did not violate the due process clause. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

27. 27 Mental Impairment Competency to Stand Trial Title 18 U.S. Code § 4241 sets for the procedures for establishing the mental capacity of the defendant to stand trial. At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, the defendant or the attorney for the government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

28. 28 Mental Impairment Competency to Stand Trial The court shall grant the motion if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect. The preponderance of the evidence test is applied in determining whether the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

29. 29 Duress or Compulsion United States v. Johnson (1992) The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the federal criminal law had incorporated the defense of duress and that it had three elements: An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, A well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

30. 30 Necessity To invoke the necessity defense, the defendants must show that They were faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil They acted to prevent imminent harm They reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between their conduct and the conduct to be averted They had no legal alternatives to violating the law Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

31. 31 Self-Defense United States v. Branch The court declared that self-defense and defense of another are affirmative defenses to both murder and voluntary manslaughter, but warned that these defenses must accommodate a citizen’s duty to accede to lawful government power and special protection due to federal officers who are discharging their official duties. When a person is identified as a law enforcement officer and uses reasonable force in the performance of his or her law enforcement duties, the use of force to resist an officer is not justified and self-defense does not apply. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

32. 32 Self-Defense A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the theory of self-defense, provided that there is a foundation in evidence, even though the evidence may be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

33. 33 Entrapment Jacobson v. United States Two federal government agencies, after finding Jacobson’s name on a bookstore mailing list, sent mail to him through five fictitious organizations and bogus pen pals to explore his willingness to break the law. Many of the agencies represented that they were funded to protect and promote sexual freedom and freedom of choice and that they promoted lobbying efforts through catalog sales. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

34. 34 Entrapment Jacobson v. United States After 2 ½ years on the government mailing list with periodic solicitations, he finally answered a letter that described concern about child pornography as hysterical nonsense and decried international censorship, and then received a catalog and ordered a magazine depicting young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was arrested after a controlled delivery of a photocopy of the magazine, but a search of his house revealed no material other than those sent by the government. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

35. 35 Entrapment Jacobson v. United States The defendant was convicted in a U.S. District Court of receiving child pornography. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, but on rehearing affirmed the conviction. Certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and held that “it is our view that the Government did not prove that this predisposition was independent and not the product of the attention that the government had directed at the petitioner. In explaining their decision, the majority noted that “the Government may not play on the weaknesses of an innocent party and beguile him into committing crime which he otherwise would not have attempted.” Law enforcement officials go too far when they “implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.” Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

36. 36 Entrapment To prove entrapment the defendant must show that: The government induced him to commit a crime, and He lacked the predisposition to engage in criminal activity. The mere suggestion to commit a crime does not amount to inducement for purposes of the entrapment defense, even if the suggestion is made by a friend. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

37. 37 Entrapment Entrapment by estoppel requires the defendant to establish: That a government official told him the act was legal; That he relied on the advice; That the reliance was reasonable; and That, given the reliance, the prosecution would be unfair. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

38. 38 Entrapment Sentencing entrapment occurs when Government agents convince offenders who are predisposed only to dealing in small quantities of drugs to deal in higher quantities for the purpose of increasing the resulting sentence of the entrapped defendant. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.2

39. 39 Attempt Title 18 § 351 of the U.S. Code It is a federal offense to kill or attempt to kill or kidnap any individual who is a member of Congress, a member of the Supreme Court, a member of the President’s Cabinet, or other designated ranking official. Title 18 § 1751 of the U.S. Code Makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment for any term of years or for life if a person is convicted of attempting to kill or kidnap the President of the United States, President-Elect, Vice President, Vice President-Elect, or members of the President’s staff. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

40. 40 Attempt Title 18 § 1114 Makes it possible to prosecute an offender who attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any branch of the United States government, while that officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of his or her official duties. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

41. 41 Attempt To obtain a conviction under § 1114, the government is required to show that: The defendant engaged in conduct with the intent of killing the officer or employee, The defendant engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the attempted killing, and The attempted killing took place while the officer or employee was engaged in or on account of the performance of his or her official duties. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

42. 42 Criminal Solicitation The elements of the offense of soliciting a crime of violence are: The defendant intended that another commit a violent felony; The circumstances were strongly corroborative of that intent; and The defendant actually solicited, commanded, induced, or otherwise endeavored to persuade another person to commit the violent felony. To convict a person, the prosecution must prove that the solicitation was to commit a federal offense. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

43. 43 Criminal Solicitation United States v. McNeil The evidence indicated that the defendant, who had been a federal prisoner at the time the alleged offense occurred, sent typewritten letters to a person outside the prison asking that the recipient of the letter physically harm the defendant’s brother-in-law and kill the defendant’s probation officer. The court found that this, plus other corroborative evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal solicitation under the federal law. To support a conviction, evidence must show that the defendant clearly intended that another person commit a violent felony. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

44. 44 Conspiracy Section 371 of title 18 defines the offense of conspiracy and established the penalty for violation. To prove conspiracy the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Two or more people agreed to pursue an unlawful objective together, That the defendant voluntarily agreed to join the conspiracy, and That one of the members of the conspiracy performed an overt act to further the objectives of the conspiracy. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

45. 45 Conspiracy In order to convict a person for a violation of the conspiracy statute, the prosecution must establish that: Two or more persons; Conspired or combined together in an agreement; To accomplish an unlawful purpose; Each had knowledge of the identity of the offense that the defendants allegedly conspired to commit, and Where at least one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

46. 46 Conspiracy Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) makes it a federal offense To use or invest income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, To acquire an interest in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or To conspire to commit any of these violations. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

47. 47 Conspiracy Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) The statute requires two or more of the predicate crimes (murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion, robbery, gambling, obstruction of justice, mail and wire fraud, securities fraud, bribery, sports bribery, counterfeiting, embezzlement, prostitution, bankruptcy fraud, and drug violation) within 10 years. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.3

48. 48 Homicide The federal code retains the common law definition of murder and divides murder into first and second degrees. The felony-murder concept is retained, but the person may be found guilty of murder in the first degree only if the felony is, in fact, committed, and the crime perpetrated is one designated in the statute. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

49. 49 Homicide The United States Code defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Murder in the first degree includes murders that involve “poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed.” Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

50. 50 Homicide Definition of “Person” The defendant’s infliction of injuries to the fetus who was born alive but died as a result of such injuries was within the federal statutory definition of murder. The more current issue is whether the death of a fetus that is killed while in the womb can be considered a crime or whether the common law rule that the fetus must be born alive to be considered a person is applied to federal law. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

51. 51 Homicide The Laci and Conner Law (2004) 18 U.S.C § 1841 Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. An offense under this section does not require proof that– The person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or The defendant intended to case the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child… Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

52. 52 Homicide Three exceptions to the Laci and Conner Law Any act done with the consent of the woman to effect a legal abortion; Any act done by a medical person to save the life or for the health of the mother; Any act committed by the woman herself with respect to her unborn child. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

53. 53 Homicide Malice Aforethought The federal courts generally follow the common law concept of malice aforethought. Three distinct elements: Intent to kill Intent to do serious bodily harm “Depraved heart” Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

54. 54 Manslaughter The U.S. Code defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice upon sudden quarrel or heat of passion. United States v. Paul If a defendant killed with the mental state required for murder, but the killing occurred in the “heat of passion” caused by adequate provocation, then the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

55. 55 Manslaughter The U.S. Code’s definition of involuntary manslaughter is similar to the traditional definition. It defines it as the unlawful killing that occurs in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission of a lawful act done in an unlawful manner or without due caution or circumspection. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

56. 56 Manslaughter The elements necessary to prove involuntary manslaughter under the federal code are: That the defendant inflicted injuries upon the deceased from which the deceased died; That the defendant acted with wanton and reckless disregard for human life; That the defendant was at the time committing an unlawful act not amounting to a felony; That the defendant knew that his conduct was a threat to the lives of others or had knowledge of circumstances that could have enabled him to reasonably foresee peril to which his act might subject others; That it occurred within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

57. 57 Assault and Battery 18 U.S.C. § 111 In general—Whoever— Forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engage in or on account of the performance of official duties; or Forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and in all other cases, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Uses a deadly or dangerous weapon shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

58. 58 Kidnapping Lindbergh Law (1932), or the Federal Kidnapping Act A defendant may not be found guilty of kidnapping under the federal statute unless the prosecution can establish transportation in interstate commerce of an unconsenting person who was held for ransom or reward. The act was not intended to confer rights on the victims of kidnapping, but rather was enacted to assist the states in enforcement of state kidnapping laws. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

59. 59 Kidnapping Four elements to obtain a conviction Transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; Of an unconsenting person who is; Held for ransom, reward, or otherwise; and Acts knowingly and willfully. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

60. 60 Hate Crimes Crimes against an individual or group based on race, religion, nationality, or ethnicity In 2009, President Obama passed The Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Prevention Act Expanded protections to individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability Removed the prerequisite that the victim was engaged in a “federally protected activity” Requires hate crimes based on gender and gender identity to be counted and tracked Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

61. 61 Rape and Sexual Abuse The federal sexual abuse statute includes the actus reus of common law rape and modern sexual assault. It defines sexual assault similarly to state statutes, and the application is limited to offenses that occur within federal jurisdiction. If rape occurs in a federal prison, it will be prosecuted under federal law. 18 U.S.C. §2421 and 18 U.S.C. § 2422 Prohibit interstate transportation of individuals for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or any other sex crime. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.4

62. 62 Arson 18 U.S.C § 81 Provides penalty for those who commit arson within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. A federal court determined that the criminal intent necessary to satisfy the “willful and malicious” elements of the arson statute includes not only acts done with the intent of burning the buildings, but acts done with the knowledge that the burning of the building was practically certain to result. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

63. 63 Arson 18 U.S.C. § 844 Targets that are involved in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity affecting interstate commerce. The government must establish that the damaged or destroyed property was used in interstate commerce or in an activity that affected interstate or foreign commerce. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

64. 64 Malicious Mischief 18 U.S.C. § 1361 Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows: If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

65. 65 Malicious Mischief 18 U.S.C. § 1363 Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, willfully and maliciously destroys or injures or attempts to destroy or injure any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and if the building be a dwelling, or the life of any person be placed in jeopardy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

66. 66 Criminal Trespass Statutes prohibiting trespass on certain federal property, trespass to perform certain prohibited acts, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1382 Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

67. 67 Burglary Chapter 103 of the U.S. Code includes the federal offenses relating to robbery and burglary. 18 U.S.C. § 2115 Whoever forcibly breaks into or attempts to break into any post office, or any building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit in such post office, or building or part thereof, so used, any larceny or other deprivation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

68. 68 Burglary Section 2117 of the United States Code makes it a crime to break the seal or lock of any railroad car, vessel, aircraft, mortar truck, wagon, or other vehicle or any pipeline system containing interstate or foreign shipments, or freight or express or other property, or entering any such vehicle or pipeline system with the intent in either case to commit larceny. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

69. 69 Burglary Section 2118 of the U.S. Code provides for a fine or imprisonment, or both, if one is found guilty of entering or attempting to enter, without authority, business premises or property of a person registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration, with intent to steal any material or a compound containing any quantity of a controlled substance. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.5

70. 70 Theft Offenses 18 U.S.C. § 661 Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any personal property of another shall be punished as follows: If the property taken is of a value exceeding $1,000, or is taken from the person of another, by a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both; in all other cases, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment not more than one year, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

71. 71 Robbery Chapter 103 of the U.S. Code relates to both robbery and burglary. Some sections apply throughout the United States, while others relate to crimes committed within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

72. 72 Robbery Many of the common law elements of robbery are carried over into the federal offense of bank robbery. They include taking, by force and violence or by intimidation, from the person or presence of another, any personal property or money or other things of value. However, the larceny portion of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), defining bank robbery and incidental crimes, does not require the common law elements of taking and carrying away. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

73. 73 Robbery Title 18 § 2112 makes it a federal crime for one person to rob another of any kind of personal property belonging to the United States. Anyone found guilty of violating this statute shall be imprisoned for not more than15 years. To be found guilty under this statute, possession or use of a deadly weapon is not required; all that is required is that the prosecution establish that the taking was by force, or threat of force, and the property taken was personal property belonging to the United States. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

74. 74 Robbery To prove the offense of bank robbery, the government must show that: An individual or individuals; Used force and violence or intimidation; To take or attempt to take; From the person or presence of another; Money, property, or anything of value; Belonging to or in the care, custody, control, management or possession; Of a bank, credit union, or savings and loan institution. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

75. 75 Robbery “Anti-Car Theft Act” 18 U.S.C. § 2119 Whoever, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force or violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall— Be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, If serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and If death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both, or sentenced to death. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

76. 76 Robbery To support a robbery conviction, the government must prove that there was: A felonious taking; Accompanied by asportation; of Personal property of value; From the person of another in his or her presence; Against his or her will; By violence or by putting in fear; Animo furandi (the intention to steal). Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

77. 77 Embezzlement 18 U.S.C. § 641 Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his own use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys, or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his own use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined, or converted— Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

78. 78 Embezzlement Four essential elements of the offense are: The accused was an officer or director of the bank, The bank was connected in some way with a national bank or a federally insured bank, The accused willfully misapplied the funds of the bank, and The accused acted with intent to defraud the bank. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

79. 79 Embezzlement 18 § 666 A person may be convicted of embezzlement if the organization from which the property is embezzled is a government or agency that receives in any one-year period benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of federal assistance. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

80. 80 Obtaining Property by False Pretenses 18 § 1341 The purpose of this statute is to protect the integrity of the mails by making it a crime to use them to implement fraudulent schemes of any kind, including the use of the mails to implement fraudulent schemes directed at a state agency. The mail and wire fraud statutes make it illegal to use the mails or any interstate electronic communication network to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

81. 81 Obtaining Property by False Pretenses To prove mail fraud the government must show: A scheme to defraud; Committed within intent to defraud; and Use of the U.S. mail or private interstate commercial carrier to further the fraudulent scheme. Court decisions have indicated that the government is not required to prove that the scheme to defraud was successful. The government need only prove that a scheme existed in which the use of the mails was reasonably foreseeable and that an actual mailing occurred in furtherance of the scheme. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

82. 82 Extortion 18 U.S.C. § 873 Blackmail Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

83. 83 Extortion Title 18 § 872 of the federal statute applies to extortion by officers and employees of the United States. Under this section, an officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to him or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of his office or employment, who commits or attempts an act of extortion may be fined or imprisoned as provided in the statute, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

84. 84 Extortion 18 U.S.C. § 875 Interstate Communications Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

85. 85 Extortion 18 U.S.C. § 1951 Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

86. 86 Receiving Stolen Property 18 U.S.C. § 2312 Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle or aircraft, knowing the same has been stolen, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. To be convicted of transporting stolen vehicles in interstate commerce, the government must prove that there was a stolen vehicle, that the defendant knew that it was stolen, and the defendant transported the vehicle in interstate commerce. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

87. 87 Receiving Stolen Property 18 U.S.C. § 662 Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, buys, receives, or conceals any money, goods, bank notes, or other things which may be the subject of larceny, which has been feloniously taken, stolen, or embezzled from any other person, knowing the same to have been so taken, stolen, or embezzled, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount or value of the thing so taken, stolen, or embezzled does not exceed $100, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

88. 88 Receiving Stolen Property In order to convict a person for the crime of receiving stolen property, the government must prove: That the property was stolen by some person other than the defendant; That the defendant received the property and converted it to his own use; That the defendant knew that the property that he or she received had been stolen. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

89. 89 Receiving Stolen Property 18 U.S.C. § 2313 Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any motor vehicle or aircraft, which has crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

90. 90 Receiving Stolen Property To convict one of a violation of this section the government must demonstrate that: The motor vehicle or aircraft involved was stolen; The defendant knew that the motor vehicle or aircraft had been stolen; The defendant possessed, concealed, stored, received, bartered, sold, or disposed of the motor vehicle; and The vehicle involved was moved in interstate traffic at the time of the defendant’s activities. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

91. 91 Forgery 18 U.S.C. § 495 Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt contract or other writing for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States or any officers or agents thereof, any sum of money; or Whoever utters or publishes as true any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or officer of the United States, any such writing in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

92. 92 False Advertising FTC regulates fair advertising Competitors or consumers may bring complaints to the FTC if they feel an advertisement is false. 15 U.S.C. § 52(a) creates criminal liability for some forms of false advertising. False advertising is a deceptive or unfair trade practice if: The creation of or causing to be created any false advertisement with use of U.S. mails or by any means used for purpose of inducing or is likely to directly or indirectly induce the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6

93. 93 Tax Evasion and Money Laundering Tax evasion is a type of fraud. There must be an affirmative act to evade or attempt to evade and the mens rea is willfulness. Money laundering is the process by which one conceals the existence, illegal source, or illegal application of income, and disguises that income to make it appear legitimate. Four elements that must be established to obtain a conviction: Knowledge, The existence of a specified unlawful activity, A financial transaction, and Intent. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 12.6