Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
Accusations of fraud against the government can carry severe consequences, including hefty fines, imprisonment, and damage to your reputation. Two key federal statutes governing these offenses are 18 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287, which address false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims made to the United States government. These laws are broad in scope, covering a wide range of fraudulent activities, from submitting false invoices to making misrepresentations in applications for government benefits. Understanding the nuances of these statutes, the potential penalties, and available defenses is crucial if you are facing allegations under either section. At KAASS LAW, we recognize the gravity of such accusations and are dedicated to providing comprehensive and robust legal representation to individuals and businesses targeted in these investigations. The following will dive into the specifics of 18 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. Furthermore. we will be exploring the elements of the offenses, potential defenses, and the critical importance of securing experienced legal counsel.
According to Title 18, US Code, Sections 286, and 287 it is illegal to make false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims upon the United States or conspire to make such claims.
The prosecution must establish the following element to convict the defendant under US Code Section 286.
There can also be two additional elements, depending on the district:
The prosecution must establish the following element to convict the defendant under the US Code, Section 287.
False - means illegal and deliberately untrue. Presenting a false claim is having the intention to perpetrate a betrayal of trust or fraud. Fictitious - means not real, feigned, or pretended. Fraudulent- means made, done, or affected with the intention to carry out a fraud.
Examples of claims against the US include, but are not limited to:
Presentation of a claim against the government must be more than an intention to make a claim; it must be presented physically and actually, and thereby made to the government. The defendant can be convicted for only presenting the false claim and it is not necessary that the government pay or otherwise fulfill the fraudulent claim. Moreover, the claim doesn’t have to be presented directly to the government, it can be presented to an intermediary authorized to accept the claim on behalf of the government, such as a tax return preparer, as long as the defendant is aware that the claim will we be presented to the government.
Actually the process of making a claim against the government can be very confusing, and claimants can sometimes make honest mistakes. In case the prosecution can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the false claim knowingly and intentionally he cannot be criminally liable for this crime.
In case the defendant can show that his claim was true and correct, then the charges can fall into dismissal.
Section 286: Conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to claims.
Section 287: False, fictitious or fraudulent claims.
At KAASS LAW, we have extensive experience in representing businesses in matters involving false claim allegations. We understand the complexities of these cases and commit to protecting our clients' interests. If you are facing such accusations, contact us today for a confidential consultation. Also, we offer guidance on how to deal with Notary Fraud, so please don't hesitate on seeking legal guidance! We will review your case, explain your options, and develop a strategy to minimize the impact on your business and your rights. Don't wait until it's too late and protect your business by seeking experienced legal counsel now from our team!
The war on drugs, a decades-long, generational disputes over illicit substances, is a complex web of laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. While state laws often address possession and smaller-scale distribution, federal drug trafficking charges are way more harsher penalties and can have life changing consequences. These charges are not simply about possessing a small amount of an illegal substance; they involve a complex interplay of factors, including the type and quantity of the drug, the method of distribution, and any involvement in larger criminal organizations. Understanding the nuances of federal drug trafficking laws is crucial, as even seemingly minor missteps can lead to severe repercussions, including lengthy prison sentences, hefty fines, and a criminal record that can haunt you for years to come. At KAASS LAW, we understand the gravity of these charges and the impact they can have on your life. We are dedicated to providing aggressive and compassionate legal representation to individuals facing federal drug trafficking accusations. The following will provide a comprehensive overview of federal drug trafficking laws, potential defenses, and the importance of securing experienced legal counsel.
Federal drug trafficking law US Code 21 Section 841 states that it is unlawful to knowingly and intentionally manufacture, dispense, distribute, or possess the intention to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance; or distribute, create, dispense or possess with the intention to dispense or distribute the counterfeit substance.
According to California Vehicle Code Section 406(a), a "moped" or "motorized bicycle" (also known as an electric bike or e-bike) is capable of no more than 30 mph on level ground with fully operative pedals for human propulsion, or an electric motor, with or without pedals for human propulsion or a motor producing less than two gross brake horsepower and an automatic transmission. In California, electric bikes are not considered motor vehicles, and the riders are not required to have a license for operating them. An e-bike doesn’t need to be registered with the state. E-bike riders are not required to comply with California's financial responsibility law and are not required to have liability insurance. California State legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1096 which classifies e-bikes into 3 categories based on the method of operation and maximum speed.
Class 1: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 20 mph that must be pedaled Class 2: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 20 mph that does not have to be pedaled Class 3: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 28 mph California laws also require the rider to obey the following basic bicycle laws:
California, a state synonymous with movement and progress, relies heavily on its intricate network of public transportation. From the iconic cable cars of San Francisco to the sprawling Metrolink system connecting Southern California, millions of people depend on common carriers to navigate their daily lives. We entrust these carriers with our safety, expecting a smooth and secure journey whether we're commuting to work, exploring a new city, or traveling across the state. But what happens when that trust is broken? What legal responsibilities do these common carriers bear, and what recourse do passengers have when negligence leads to injury? At KAASSS LAW, we understand the complexities surrounding common carrier law, and we're here to shed light on this crucial aspect of personal injury and transportation law, ensuring you understand your rights and the protections afforded to you as a passenger in California. Navigating the aftermath of an accident involving a common carrier can be daunting, but with the right legal guidance, you can pursue justice and secure the compensation you deserve.
According to California Civil Code Section 2168, a common carrier is everyone who offers the public to carry persons, property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages. Typically, a common carrier is transportation company that has a contract to transport property, people, and goods across or around within state lines as public services. A common carrier is any entity that holds itself out to the public as willing to transport passengers or property from one place to another for compensation. This definition encompasses a wide range of businesses, including:
At KAASS LAW, we understand that your reputation is invaluable. While many are familiar with defamation claims like libel and slander, a less discussed but equally damaging legal avenue exists. In another legal term, this called tort of false light. In California, false light claims offer recourse for individuals who are victims of privacy invasion and are in public display that is highly offensive to a reasonable person, even if the information isn't technically false. The following will delve into the intricacies of false light claims in California. As a result, this will be helping you understand your rights and whether you might have a viable legal case.
Invasion of privacy is defined as the intrusion of another person’s right to privacy and can be performed as an unreasonable interference with an individual’s confidential information, solitude, or public image. False light is considered a type of invasion of privacy tort, and it happens when one person alters the public image of another one by portraying that person in an offensive and false light.
To have a successful claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must be able to prove the following four elements:
California, a state known for its progressive policies, takes animal abuse seriously. At KAASS LAW, we believe that animals, as sentient beings, deserve our compassion and protection. Understanding the nuances of California's animal abuse laws is crucial, not only for animal owners but for all members of our community. The following will aim to shed light on these laws, outlining what constitutes animal abuse, the penalties for such acts, and what you can do to help protect vulnerable animals.
According to the animal abuse law California Penal Code Section 597 (PC 597), it is illegal to maliciously and intentionally mutilate, maim, wound, torture, or kill an animal. California law broadly defines animal abuse, encompassing a range of actions that cause unjustified pain, suffering, or death to an animal. These acts can be intentional, negligent, or even a result of an owner's failure to provide adequate care. Some common examples of animal abuse include:
The allure of winning the lottery is a powerful force. From small-town raffles to multi-state mega-millions, the dream of instant wealth captivates millions. However, behind the glittering prizes and the tantalizing odds lies a complex legal landscape, governed in part by 18 US Code Chapter 61. At KAASS LAW, we understand that navigating this legal terrain can be confusing. As a result, we're here to shed light on this crucial piece of legislation and its implications.
This chapter of the United States Code, titled "Lotteries," outlines the federal laws governing lotteries and related activities. It's a comprehensive number of regulations that addresses various avenues of lotteries. This includes their operation, advertising, and the transportation of lottery tickets and related paraphernalia across state lines. Chapter 61 aims to balance the states' rights to regulate gambling within their borders with the federal government's interest in preventing the spread of illegal and unregulated gambling operations.
In today's interconnected world, businesses rely heavily on their employees to deliver services, create products, and represent the company's brand. While most employment relationships are mutually beneficial, there are instances where an employee's actions can cause significant harm to others. When this harm stems from an employer's failure to properly vet, manage, or dismiss a problematic employee, it can give rise to a legal claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. At KAASS LAW, we understand the complexities of these cases and dedicate in helping those who with injuries due to an employer's negligence in these critical areas.
Usually, injuries take place in a place of business, or the accident occurs due to the negligence of an employee in any other place. California law gives the injured person the right to sue and recover damages from the employer who is liable for the negligent hiring or supervision of the employee. California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) 426 clearly explains the elements that must be proven for convicting the employer in negligent hiring and/or supervising the employee:
California follows substantial factor causation. California Civil Jury Instruction 430 describes substantial factor causation as follows: “A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.” Thus, for being liable in a California personal injury case, defendant’s conduct must have substantially contributed to the harm such that in case the defendant didn’t act as he did, the harm wouldn’t have occurred.
In the context of causation, conduct refers to the illegal acts or omissions, on which a claim of legal fault is based, such as product defect, negligence, dangerous condition of public property, or breach of contract.
Defendant’s contributing conduct must be more than a trivial or remote factor. The defendant’s conduct which proximately, directly, and substantially caused injuries to the plaintiff must have been intentional, negligent, or violate. For example, in case the defendant’s innocent cough has startled a plaintiff into falling and injuring himself, the plaintiff can’t sue the defendant for personal injury unless the defendant’s conduct was intentional for the purpose of making the plaintiff startle and fall. Defendant’s conduct can’t be considered a substantial factor in causing the injury to the plaintiff in case the same injury would have occurred without that conduct. Proximate and direct causation requires that the defendant set off a reasonably predictable series of events that lead to the plaintiff’s injuries.
Embezzlement, the act of misappropriating funds or assets entrusted to one's care, can have devastating consequences for businesses and individuals alike. While embezzlement can occur at various levels and in different contexts, federal embezzlement laws are designed to address particularly serious offenses that cross state lines or involve federal agencies or funds. At KAASS LAW, we understand the complexities of federal embezzlement laws and are dedicated to providing comprehensive legal representation to both those accused of and those victimized by these crimes.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 641 it is prohibited to embezzle property, money, records, or anything else of value that belongs to the United States government or one of its agencies.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 641 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 641 offense involves $1,000 or less:
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements to convict the defendant of federal drug trafficking:
A counterfeit substance is a controlled substance that has the container or labeling of any trademark, identifying mark, trade name, number, imprint, device, or any likeness thereof, of a manufacturer, dispenser, or distributor or without authorization.
The defendant is likely to be charged with a federal drug crime charges in case the criminal activity:
Small amounts of drugs can be considered to be for personal use, and are often handled by local and state officials. But, in case the defendant is involved with larger amounts of drugs with the intent to distribute, his case is more likely to be handled by federal authorities.
The judge considers the following factors when determining the defendant’s sentence:
According to the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), controlled substances are divided into five schedules based on their perceived abuse potential, safety concerns, and medical utility. Drugs listed in Schedule I have the highest potential for abuse. The defendant can face a 10-year minimum sentence for manufacture or possession with the intent to distribute the following drugs:
The defendant can face up to 20 years in federal prison for a second offense, and a life sentence for a third offense. In case someone suffered great bodily injury or died as a result of the crime the penalties can double from a minimum of 20 years to a life sentence for a subsequent offense.
The defendant will also face a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in federal prison for smaller amounts of drugs.
The defendant will face harsher penalties in case he carried a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, was trafficking drugs near a federal facility or school, or used a minor under the age of 18 in drug operations.
At KAASS LAW, we have an experienced office in defending individuals against federal drug trafficking charges. We understand the complexities of federal law and are committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal representation. If you are facing federal drug trafficking accusations, contact us today for a confidential consultation. Additionally, if you received any trouble from drugs hidden in a false compartment, we can also help! We will review your case, explain your options, and provide legal options in protecting your rights and your future. Don't face these serious charges alone. Let KAASS LAW fight for you. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
E-bike accident injuries can be extensive, including fatalities. As e-bikes are faster and heavier than conventional bicycles, the e-bike force of impact on a pedestrian can be up to forty-five times harder. Here are the most common types of injuries associated with e-bikes:
For holding an at-fault party accountable for the accident, a victim proves that the at-fault driver's negligence was the main factor in the crash. If the driver was impaired, speeding, distracted, or otherwise careless, he can be liable for caused injuries. There are several ways of proving the fault and determining the liability.
In case a defective or dangerous roadway caused a bicycle crash, the city or governmental agency, responsible for maintaining the roadway can be liable for the accident.
In case the crash took place because of a malfunction with the e-bike itself, the victim can sue the manufacturer with a defective design, defective manufacturing or labeling or warning error claims
Potentially liable parties in personal injury electric bike lawsuits also include pedestrians and other e-bike drivers.
A successful e-bike accident claim will include compensation for:
If you or a loved one has been injured in an e-bike accident we encourage you to contact experienced bike accident attorneys at KAASS Law for a free consultation today.
The key element distinguishing a common carrier from a private carrier is the public offering. A private carrier, like a company that only transports its own goods or employees, does not fall under the same legal obligations as a common carrier.
Here are the elements which the plaintiff must establish under a negligence cause of action:
Common carriers in California are subject to a higher standard of care than other automobile operators. Under California Civil Code Section 2100 a common carrier “must use the utmost diligence and care and for the safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill”. Typically, common carriers must follow the below-mentioned guidelines:
Here are some examples of unseen parties that can be liable for an accident involving a common carrier:
Normally a plaintiff has two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury cause against the common carrier. There is a six-month deadline to file a claim for plaintiffs who have suffered injuries while on-board common carriers owed by public entities. Failure to file a claim within the six-month period will bar the injured person from recovery. In some cases, California civil courts allow exceptions for this rule:
Victims suffered from the common carrier’s negligent conduct have a right to monetary recovery for all their losses, including:
At KAASS LAW, we're dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals injured due to the negligence of common carriers. We understand the complexities of this area of law and have a proven track record of success in representing clients in these cases. If you or a loved one has been injured while riding on a bus, train, plane, or any other form of common carrier, contact us today for a free consultation. We're here to fight for you and help you get back on track. Don't let negligence derail your life. Let KAASSS LAW be your guide.
Publication doesn’t necessarily need to be an actual publication, such as online or in a newspaper. Usually, it involves making the matter public or communicating the matter to the public, which means more than a few people.
In California, a plaintiff has one year to file a lawsuit against the defendant for the false light invasion of privacy. This period starts running when the plaintiff knows or should have reasonably known about the defendant's unlawful actions.
False light incidents can cause much damage to a person and typically the main legal remedy will be a monetary damages award. A monetary amount, in full payment, by the defendant to the plaintiff for compensating the losses he has experienced as a result of the false light incident. The damages may cover losses such as:
A plaintiff can have a limit to a false light claim in case their extremely open about the publication, such as made no efforts to hide it and it was something commonly known with other people.
If you believe you have been the victim of false light, it's crucial to seek legal advice as soon as possible. An experienced attorney at KAASS LAW can evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and help you pursue justice. We can investigate the circumstances surrounding the publication, gather evidence to support your claim, and negotiate with the defendant or represent you in court.
At KAASS LAW, we dedicate in protecting our clients' rights and reputations. If you believe you have been the victim of false light in California, contact us today for a confidential consultation. We will carefully review your case and provide you with honest and straightforward legal advice. Additionally, we are quite familiar with filing a CA Tort Claims Act. Give us a call so we can assess and schedule a consultation for legal assistance!
Don't let a false portrayal damage your reputation any longer. Let KAASS LAW fight for you.
Under this animal abuse law in California, it is also prohibited to maliciously or intentionally maiming, torturing mutilating or a bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or fish that is protected or endangered species.
To convict the defendant under California Penal Code Section 597, the prosecutor must prove that he acted maliciously, intentionally, or cruelly when committing the act of animal abuse.
The defendant can fight a PC Section 597 charge in case he injured or killed an animal for the purposes of protecting himself, another person, or even another animal. The defendant must present the evidence that he acted reasonably given the circumstances of the incident.
A defendant can fight a PC Section 597 charge in case the animal’s injury or death was an accident and wasn’t the result of any intentional plan, maliciousness, cruelty, or gross negligence.
There are plenty of reasons when a person can be falsely charged with a PC Section 597 violation. It can be mistaken identity or a purposeful accusation of another person of animal abuse.
California PC Section 597 Animal Abuse can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the defendant's criminal history and the facts of the case and.
In case the animal abuse involved the use of a deadly weapon, the judge can extend the sentence by an additional year. Moreover, the conviction for Penal Code Section 597 PC violation may result in additional consequences, such as mandatory counseling or the animals being permanently removed from the defendant’s custody. The defendant can also face occupational and professional license restrictions, immigration consequences, loss of rights to own firearms, and more.
At KAASS LAW, we're passionate about protecting animals and holding abusers accountable. We can assist in cases of animal abuse by:
Education is key to preventing animal abuse. By understanding the laws and recognizing the signs of abuse, we can all play a role in protecting vulnerable animals. If you suspect an animal is being mistreated, don't hesitate to report it. Your actions could save an animal's life. This type of cruelty also includes animals left in hot vehicles. Additionally, LA Animal Care & Control is another great platform for reporting any form of animal cruelty.
At KAASS LAW, we believe that animals deserve our respect and protection. By working together, we can create a community where animal abuse is zero tolerance. If you have any questions about California's animal abuse laws or need legal assistance in an animal-related matter, please contact us for a consultation. We're here to help.
Under this statute, it is illegal to bring into the US or knowingly deposit with an express company or any other common carrier, via transportation, to interstate commerce of any paper, certificate, or instrument that purports to be a lottery or any similar game of chance, or advertisement of a game of chance unless permitted within the United States. It is also prohibited to knowingly transmit information used for the purposes of procuring a lottery ticket or ticket for a game of chance unless permitted within the USA.
Under this statute, you cannot knowingly mail or deliver by mail any package, letter, postcard, or circular that contains a lottery ticket or a ticket for a game of chance that is not within the United States. It is also illegal to transmit by mail any draft, checks, bill, postal note, or money for purchasing such tickets and mailing newspapers, circulars, or any other publications which contain advertisements for lotteries or games of chance.
This statute addresses the illegal actions of an officer or any employee of Postal Service who sends, delivers or vends lottery tickets, packages, circulars, postal cards, or acts as an agent for a lottery.
This statute prohibits broadcasting, or knowingly permits the broadcasting, advertisements for lotteries or games of chance, any information about the lottery on any TV or radio stations for which a license is required.
Under this statute, you cannot knowingly violate the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and Revised Statutes of the United States.
18 USC Section 1307 carves out some exceptions to certain advertisements.
Navigating the complex legal framework surrounding lotteries can be challenging, particularly for those involved in operating or promoting lottery-related activities. As a result, understanding the provisions of 18 US Code Chapter 61 and its interplay with state laws is essential. In return, this is ensuring compliance and avoiding potential legal pitfalls.
At KAASS LAW, we have a deep understanding of the legal issues surrounding gambling and lotteries. We can provide guidance on complying with federal and state regulations, assist with licensing and regulatory matters, and represent clients in legal disputes related to lotteries. Whether you are a lottery operator, a vendor, or a participant, we can help you navigate the complex legal landscape.
The regulation of lotteries is not only about ensuring compliance with the law but also about protecting consumers and ensuring fair play. Laws like 18 US Code Chapter 61 aim to prevent fraud, protect minors, and ensure that lottery operations are conducted with transparency and integrity. At KAASS LAW, we are committed to upholding these principles and helping our clients navigate the legal framework in a responsible and ethical manner.
The laws governing lotteries are subject to change, and it's essential to stay informed about the latest developments. At KAASS LAW, we monitor these changes closely and provide our clients with up-to-date legal advice. Additionally, we are also familiar with California wagering and gambling laws as well. Regardless, contact us today for a consultation, and let us help you understand your rights and obligations under the law. Don't leave your legal compliance to chance. Do you have questions about anything that has not been covered in this topic? Please feel free to get in touch with KAASS Law at (310) 943-1171 Our team of professionals will attempt to help you out with the best of our ability.
The key element in a negligent hiring claim is foreseeability. Did the employer know, or should they have reasonably known, about the employee's unfitness? A thorough background check, careful review of credentials, and robust interview process are essential to mitigating the risk of negligent hiring.
According to California law, employee is any person subject to the direct control of an employer. Such people consist not only of salaried employees also of temporary workers, per diem overflow workers, independent contractors, agents, and third parties such as security guards.
For being liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention the employer should have known or been on notice that the employee was incompetent or unable to perform the work. According to California Civil Code Section 1714, every person is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their person or property. But this rule applies only in case the employee was acting within the scope of employment. So the employer is liable in case the employee was doing his job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the accident happened.
An employer cannot be liable in case the employee committed intentionally wrongful acts. But if the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the employee's intention to engage in an illegal act, the employer can still be liable for negligent hiring or supervision.
Employers can’t be liable for the negligent or intentional actions of the employee which fall outside of the scope and course of the employment, because the consequences are unrelated to the employer.
Here are a few actions the employer can undertake to avoid claims of negligent hiring or retention
At KAASS LAW, we have extensive experience in handling cases involving negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. We understand the intricacies of these claims. As a result, we dedicate to fighting for the rights of those of sustain injuries due to an employer's negligence. If you or a loved one has suffered harm as a result of an employee's misconduct, contact us today. Our skilled legal team can investigate your case, gather evidence, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve. We commit to holding employers accountable for their negligent actions and ensuring justice for our clients. Additionally, we are familiar with representing clients in employment discrimination.
Don't face these challenges alone. Let KAASS LAW be your advocate.
Defendant’s negligence can combine with another factor to cause injury to the plaintiff. In case the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury to the plaintiff, then the defendant is responsible for the injury. The defendant cannot avoid legal responsibility just because some other condition, person, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the injury to the plaintiff.
In case the defendant claims that the injuries were caused to the plaintiff as a result of another person’s misconduct he must prove all of the following:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 642 it is prohibited to embezzle tools, printing devices, stamps, or other implements used to create currency notes, federal bonds, certificates, postage stamps, coupons, or other item authorized to be put into circulation by the federal government.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 643 it is prohibited to embezzle public money by federal officers, agents or employees.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 643 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 643 offense involves $1,000 or less:
18 U.S.C. § 644 applies to embezzlement by a person who receives and keeps public funds that don’t belong to him.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 644 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 644 offense involves $1,000 or less:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 648 and 649, it is prohibited to embezzle either by keeping or failing to promptly deposit federal money by any person charged with the safekeeping of federal money.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § §648 and 649 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § §648 and 649 offense involves $1,000 or less:
18 U.S.C. § 650 addresses the embezzlement by the United States Treasurer, an employee of the treasury, or any other public federal depository.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 650 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 650 offense involves $1,000 or less:
18 U.S.C. § 653 addresses embezzlement by any federal officer or employee who is charged with disbursing public money.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 653 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 653 offense involves $1,000 or less:
This section addresses embezzlement by federal public bank examiners and assistant examiners when the money embezzled is taken from a banking institution which is a member of the Federal Reserve System, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, is an agency or branch of a foreign bank.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 655 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 655 offense involves $1,000 or less:
This section prohibits embezzlement by an employee of any banking credit, lending, or insurance institution the Federal Reserve Act, or by a Federal Reserve employee.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 657 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 657 offense involves $1,000 or less:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 658 it is prohibited to embezzle property or money pledged to or held by a farm credit agency as security for a farm loan.
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 658 offense involves $1,000 or more:
In case the 18 U.S.C. § 658 offense involves $1,000 or less:
According to this Section, it is prohibited to solicit a gift of money or other property on behalf of the United States Federal government or one of its agencies with the intent to keep that gift or to embezzle donated property or money.
Embezzling from any employee benefit plan.
This section defines embezzlement by employees of organizations receiving $10,000 or more in federal grants, subsidies, contracts, guarantees, loans insurance, or other forms of federal assistance in one year period.
In case the offense involves $5,000 or more:
This section defined the embezzlement of money, livestock, or any other property worth $10,000 or more, which is connected with marketing or selling livestock in foreign or interstate commerce. Penalties for 18 U.S.C. § 667 Offenses:
According to 18 U.S.C. § 668, it is prohibited to obtain or steal by fraud artwork or other items from a museum when the art is worth at least $5,000 and is over one hundred years old or worth at least $100,000.
If you are facing federal embezzlement charges or believe you have been the victim of embezzlement, contact KAASS LAW today for a consultation. Additionally, we can also help anyone regarding Federal Bribery Laws as well. We are here to protect your rights and help you navigate the complexities of federal law. Don't face these challenges alone – let our experienced legal team fight for you.