Opinion ID: 774590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on False-Oath Counts

Text: 35 Sabbeth next challenges the jury instructions on the false-oath counts. Sabbeth was found guilty of three counts of knowingly and fraudulently making a false oath or account in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(2). 10 At trial, the District Court instructed the jury that an act is done with intent to defraud if it is done with the intent to deceive any creditor, trustee, or bankruptcy judge. Sabbeth argues that this definition of intent to defraud (i.e., fraudulently) is erroneous because one must do more than merely deceive in order to defraud; according to Sabbeth, one defrauds only where he deceives in order to deprive another of a right, interest, or property. In other words, Sabbeth contends that a defendant can be convicted of making a false oath at a bankruptcy proceeding only if he makes a false statement with the specific intent of altering the distribution of another's assets. 36 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected this very argument in United States v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578, 586-87 (7th Cir. 1999). In that case, the Court upheld a jury instruction explaining that a statement is made fraudulently for purposes of Section 152 if it is made with [an] intent to deceive, and rejected the argument that Section 152 is limited to false statements that deprive the debtor of his property or the bankruptcy estate of its assets. Id. at 586 (emphasis added). According to the Court, § 152 is designed to protect the integrity of the administration of a bankruptcy case and not simply the property interest of the parties. Id. at 587. Accordingly, it held that the district court's jury instructions did not need to include specific references to the potential impact on the disposition of assets. See id. at 588. 37 We adopt the Seventh Circuit's reasoning here. The plain language of the false-oath provision punishes a person for making a false statement knowingly and fraudulently. The common understanding of the term fraudulently includes the intent to deceive. See Black's Law Dictionary 662 (6th ed. 1990) (A statement... is 'fraudulent' if it was falsely made, or caused to be made, with the intent to deceive. (emphasis added)). Moreover, the Seventh Circuit's reasoning is consistent with our own precedent. We held long ago that Section 152 is essentially equivalent to a perjury statute, and that only the basic requirements of perjury need be proven. In re Robinson, 506 F.2d 1184, 1189 (2d Cir. 1974). 38 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was not required to instruct the jury that a false oath must be made with the intent to deprive a third party of a right, interest, or property. It was sufficient for the District Court to define fraudulently as made 'with the intent to deceive.'