'Interim Decision #1494 

MATTER OP BATTEN 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-2997296 

Decided by Board August 17, 1966 

Conviction of conspiracy to embesrld and misapply fonds, monies and securities 

in violation of the Federal Reserve Act (18 U.S.C. 658) is conviction of a 

crime involving moral turpitude. - 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1552—Section 241(a) (4) 13 U.S.C. 1231(a) (4)1—Convicted 

after entry of two crimes involving moral tarPityle, 

to wit: larceny of property and conspiracy in violation of the Federal Reserve Act of embezzling and 

misapplying funds, monies and securities. 

The respondent, a native and citizen of Canada, appeals from an 

order entered by the special inquiry officer on April 20, 1965 directing his deportation on the charge stated in the order to show cause. 

Exceptions have been taken to the finding that the respondent's 

conviction for conspiracy to violate Title 18, U.S.C., section 656, is 

a crime involving mural turpitude. 

The respondent, a married male -alien, 51 years of age last entered 

the United States through , the port of Detroit, Michigan on or 

about October 24; 1933. -He concedes that he was convicted in. the 

Recorder's Court, Detroit, Michigan on. July 13, 1935, for the offense of larceny of property. It is conceded that this offense involves moral turpitude. 

The respondent was convicted in the United States District 

Court, Detroit, Michigan, on April 23, 1964, for the offense of conspiracy in violation of Federal Reserve Act, 1.8 U.S.C. 656, for 

embezzling and misapplying funds, monies and securities. The 

issue before us is whether the offense defined by 18 U.S.C. 656 1 is 

a crime involving moral turpitude. , 

'Tice pertinent portion of Tine 18, U.S.C., 656 reads as follows: 

Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of, or connected in 

any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, national bank or 

271 
Interim Decision #1494 

The statute punishes embezzling, abstracting, purloining and 

-willfully misapplying any funds or monks. The indictment (Ex. 

3) Charges the 'respondent as a co-conspirator with one, Charles 

Graul (an.officer of the bank) "did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly and feloniously conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, and each with the other, and diverse other persons presently unknown ... to embezzle, abstract, purloin and wilfully misapply and cause to embezzle, abstract and wilfully misapply 

monies, funds, securities and credits, which were entrusted to the 

. custody, care and control of the National. Bank of Wyandotte, 2517 

' Fort Highway, Wyandotte, Michigan, it Member of the Federal 

Reserve System, and to the custody and care 'of Charles Graul, a 

Vice-President and Branch Manager of the said National Bank of 

Wyandotte, in violation of section 656, Title 18, U.S.C." 

It has been held that conspiracy to commit an offense does not 

involve moral turpitude unless the substantive offense, the object 

of the conspiracy itself, involves moral turpitude. Matter of G—, 

7 Dee. 114, citing Mercer v. Leswe, 96 F.2d 122; cer. den. 805 

13.S..611. The question to be resolved is whether the substantive 

offenses of embezzlement, abstraction, purloining and wilfully misapplying money belonging to the National Bank of Wyandotte involve moral turpitude. While the statute may include offenses 

which do and other which do not involve moral turpitude, we of 

course _must look to the' record of conviction to determine. which 

portion of the statute was violated. Matter of C—, b I.. & N. Dec. 

65; Matter of R—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 444. 

There is no question but that embezzling or "purloiiring involves 

moral turpitude. The issue presented id whether the offenses of 

•abstracting or wilfully misapplying funds involves moral turpitride. 

Counsel maintains that since there is no reference to an intent to 

defraud in the statute and since there is no such charge in the in 

 the respondent must be deemed to have plead guilty to 

the least' imaginable offense defined by the statute, namely, "A wilful misapplication of iunds with intent to injure." Counsel urges 

that this offense does not involve moral turpitude because there is 

insuredbank, or a receiver of a national bank, or any agent or employee of the 

receiver, or a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of a Federal 

Reserve Agent or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds 

or credits of such bank or any moneys, funds, assets or securities intrusted 

to the custody or care of any .such bank or to the custody or care of any such 

agent, cancer, director, employee or receiver, sball be fined net more than 

55,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

272 
Interim Decision #1494 

no allegation that there was a misapplication of funds with an intent to defraud. 

It has been consistently held that an intent to injure or defraud 

the bank is an element of the offense defined by 18 U.S,O. 806 despite the fact that such an intent is omitted from the statute. 

Golden v. United States, 318 F.2d. 357 (0.A. 1, 1963) ; Seals v. 

United States 221 F.2d 243; Ramirez v. United States, 318 F.2d 

155 (CA. 9, key 1963) ; Logsdon v. United States, 253 F.2d 12; 

Williamson v. United States, 332 Fad 123; United States v. Natot, 

146 F2d 197, 198 (CA. 2). The court in the Rs.mirez's CASE! (p. 

158), (supra) said that "the words 'did wilfully misapply' constitute a sufficient charge of a criminal intent to defraud." According 

to the indictment the respondent and others entered into a conspiracy with an officer of the National Bank of Wyandotte, Michigan who in return for a fixed fee would approve loans,in the name 

of a third party submitted for discount by an organization controlled 

by the respondent. The indictment charges embezzlement, purloining and .misapplieation of the funds of the bank as a result of this 

conspiracy.. Under the circumstances we find that the offense of 

which the respondent was convicted. involves moral turpitude. The 

appeal -will be dismissed. 

• ORDER: It is directed that )the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. • 

278