Court Opinion

ID: 9488938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:00:13.994892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:11.932758
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
GARTH, Circuit Judge:
On September 30, 1993, defendant Michael David Alston (“Alston”) was indicted on two counts. Count I charged him with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371: (i) to defraud the United States and the Treasury and (ii) to structure to avoid the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of the anti-structuring provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and § 5322. Count II charged him with structuring in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), § 5322(b); 31 C.F.R. § 103.11, § 103.22; and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). Following a non-jury trial, Alston was convicted on both counts.
After Alston was convicted, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Ratzlaf v. United States, - U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994), in which it held that, in order to obtain a structuring conviction, the government must prove that the defendant “willfully” structured. “Willfulness” was defined as the defendant’s knowledge that structuring was illegal. The government conceded that it had not proven the mens rea (knowledge of illegality) that Rat-*715zlaf required in order to sustain Count II, the substantive count of structuring and that portion of Count I that charged conspiracy to structure. The district court therefore vacated those portions of Alston’s conviction. However, the district court refused to set aside Alston’s conviction under Count I which charged a § 371 conspiracy to defraud, reasoning that Ratzlaf’s mens rea requirement did not apply.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse because the indictment, in charging under the “defraud” clause of § 371, (Indictment ¶ 7(a)), alleges no more than a conspiracy to defraud the United States by structuring, a far different conspiracy than the genre of “Klein conspiracies”2 relied on by the government. In addition, we have such substantial difficulty in understanding how Alston can be convicted of a conspiracy to defraud by structuring when he cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to structure or of structuring itself,3 that we reverse Alston’s conviction.
I.
On July 28, 1988, Alston, operator of an unprofitable convenience store, and his brother Henry each arranged to purchase top-of-the-line BMW automobiles from West German Motor Imports for approximately $70,000 apiece.4 The sales contract on each car provided that a down payment of $41,000 would be paid toward the purchase price of the ear on or before the date of delivery, and that the remainder of the purchase price would be financed. The salesman was eo-defendant Richard Kosa. Alston and his brother each left a personal check for $500 toward their respective down payments.
Alston’s car became available on September 12, 1988. Alston made cash remittals to Motor Imports of $5,000 on September 30, 1988, $2,500 on October 4, 1988, and $1,500 on October 5, 1988, for a total of $9,000 within that week. A single $10,000 cash payment would have triggered Motor Imports’s obligation to file an IRS Form 8300 for cash payments over $10,000.5
On October 5, 1988, Alston paid cash for a $9,000 money order payable to Motor Imports from Therese Drew, the head bank teller at Stenton Avenue Branch of Meridian Bank and a close personal friend of Alston’s, who also kept the books for Alston’s convenience store. At trial, Drew testified that she knew about the currency transaction report (“CTR”) filing requirements imposed by law and had discussed the CTR filing requirements with Alston. On October 7,1988, Alston purchased with cash another $8,000 money order payable to Motor Imports from the Stenton Avenue Branch of Meridian Bank.
A similar pattern was followed for the purchase of Henry Alston’s BMW, and on December 9, 1988, both Michael and Henry Alston took delivery of their new cars.
On September 30, 1993, Alston was charged in two counts of a three count indictment. Count I charged Alston with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371: (i) to defraud the United States and the Treasury and (ii) to structure to avoid the reporting require*716ments of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a)6 in violation of the anti-structuring provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3)7 and § 5322.8 Count II charged Alston with the substantive offense of structuring, that is, evasion of the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of the anti-structuring provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), § 5322(b); 31 C.F.R. § 103.11,9 § 103.22;10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).11
On November 17, 1993, a non-jury trial was held. On November 18, 1993, Alston was convicted of all counts. The district court sustained Alston’s conviction relying on the Third Circuit law in effect at that time. Our jurisprudence then provided that to obtain a structuring conviction, the government need only prove that the defendant knew of the financial institution’s obligation to report financial transactions of over $10,000, and that the defendant structured his transactions in order to avoid triggering such reports. See United States v. Shirk, 981 F.2d 1382 (3d Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 873, 127 L.Ed.2d 70 (1994). The district court concluded that Alston knew of the bank’s reporting requirements from his conversations with Drew, and that he had intentionally structured his transactions to avoid having CTR’s filed with the IRS.
On January 11, 1994, after the trial, but before the district court ruled on Alston’s post-trial motions, the Supreme Court held that in order to obtain a structuring conviction the government must prove that the defendant knew that structuring itself was illegal. Ratzlaf v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994).
Aston moved to set aside the verdict and sought the entry of a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government conceded that it had not proven knowledge of illegality. It therefore conceded that Aston’s convictions for structuring and conspiracy to structure under § 5324 and § 5322 could not stand.
By order filed April 6, 1994, the district court granted Aston’s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict with respect to the *717substantive count of structuring and so much of Count I that had charged conspiracy to structure (Indictment ¶ 7(b)). The district court entered a judgment of acquittal on those charges. The district court refused, however, to set aside Alston’s conviction under that portion of Count I that had charged conspiracy to defraud, (Indictment ¶ 7(a)). It did so on the ground that Ratzlaf7s mens rea requirement did not apply to § 371 conspiracies to defraud.
On November 29, 1994, Alston was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day for conspiracy to defraud the United States, as charged in Count I of the indictment.
II.
Section 5313 of title 31 of the United States Code, and 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(a)(1) promulgated thereunder, provide that banks and other “financial institutions” must file CTR’s for cash transactions of $10,000 or more. In 1986, Congress enacted 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and § 5322 as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Section 5324 provides that it is illegal for an individual to “structure,” that is, to conduct one or more cash transactions at one or more financial institutions, for purposes of evading the financial institution’s reporting requirements under 31 C.F.R. § 103.22. Structuring includes reducing a sum of cash exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums. Because, prior to 1994, section 5324 did not itself contain a penalty provision, its penalty provision was supplied by section 5322(a), which provided that “a person willfully violating” section 5324 was subject to criminal penalties.
We originally interpreted the term “willful” in § 5322(a) to mean knowledge of the bank’s reporting requirements under § 5313 coupled with the intent to evade those requirements. United States v. Shirk, 981 F.2d 1382, 1390-92 (3d Cir.1992). However, in Ratzlaf v. United States, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126- L.Ed.2d 615 (1994), the Supreme Court held that the term “willful” in § 5322(a) required proof beyond knowledge of a bank’s reporting duties and intent to evade them. Ratzlaf for the first time required that the government prove that the defendant “knew the structuring in which he engaged was iinlawful.” Ratzlaf, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 663 (emphasis added). Thus, at all times relevant to this appeal, structuring was one of the few crimes for which the government had to prove knowledge of illegality. See United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1699, 131 L.Ed.2d 562 (1995).12
As earlier noted, the government conceded following trial that it had failed to prove that Alston knew it was illegal to avoid CTR’s, and agreed that Alston’s convictions for the substantive offense of structuring and conspiracy to structure should be vacated. However, the government maintained that Alston’s structuring may nonetheless be punished as the object of a “Klein conspiracy”13 under the “defraud” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court agreed and declined to vacate the charge against Alston for conspiracy to defraud the United States under § 371.
*718III.
Section 371, the general federal conspiracy statute, provides as follows:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any matter or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be [subject to criminal penalties],
18 U.S.C. § 371. Section 371 refers to two types of conspiracies: (1) conspiracy to commit a substantive offense proscribed by another statute (the “ ‘offense’ clause”); and (2) conspiracy to defraud the United States (the “ ‘defraud’ clause”). See United States v. Vazquez, 319 F.2d 381, 384 (3d Cir.1963). While the “offense” clause requires reference to another part of the criminal code, the “defraud” clause does not, simply because the substantive offense (fraud) is contained in the statute itself.
It is well settled that to convict a defendant of conspiracy under the “offense” clause, the government must prove whatever level of mens rea is required for conviction of the underlying substantive offense. The Supreme Court has made clear that “in order to sustain a judgment of conviction on a charge of conspiracy to violate a federal statute [under the “offense” clause of § 371], the Government must prove at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself.” United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 685-86, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 1264, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) (citing Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 226, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 2263, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974)).14
In order to convict a pre-1994 structuring defendant, the government must prove “willful” violation of the anti-structuring statute, that is, knowledge of the illegality of structuring, Ratzlaf v. United States, - U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). A pre-1994 conspiracy to structure must also be dismissed absent a showing of a “willful” violation. Thus, “it is necessary to establish knowledge of the illegality of structuring in order to convict a defendant for conspiracy to structure financial transactions.” United States v. Kim, 65 F.3d 123, 126 (9th Cir.1995) (reversing conviction for conspiracy to structure where the jury was not instructed to find that the defendant had knowledge of the illegality of structuring). It was obviously for these reasons that the district court in the instant pre-1994 case dismissed the substantive charge of structuring as well as the charge of § 371 conspiracy to structure.
After the district court dismissed all but the charge of § 371 conspiracy to defraud, of which Alston was convicted, the issue then remaining before us was whether Alston, in light of Ratzlaf’s pre-1994 standard of willfulness — a standard since amended (see footnote 12, supra )• — could be convicted of a conspiracy to defraud by structuring without proof of knowledge of illegality. In United States v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560 (3d Cir.1994), we answered that question in connection with the Federal Election Campaign Act. We held that the standard that applied to the substantive offense also applied to § 371 conspiracy to defraud. Here, we answer that question consistent with Curran’s principle and holding and require that a conviction to defraud the United States by pre-1994 structuring must also be supported by proof that the defendant knew that structuring was illegal.15
*719The defendant in Curran had asked his employees to make individual contributions to the election campaigns of certain candidates for federal office. He then reimbursed them in cash, thereby circumventing the maximum campaign contributions permitted to any individual under federal law. Following trial, Curran was convicted on charges of causing election campaign treasurers to submit false reports to the Federal Election Commission (the “FEC”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) and § 1001,16 and of conspiracy to defraud the United States under § 371.
Like the antistructuring statutes, § 1001 punishes only “willful” conduct. We held that “willfully” causing a violation of the disclosure obligations under the Federal Campaign Act, was no different than “willfully” causing the failure by a bank to file a CTR under the Bank Secrecy Act. Curran, 20 F.3d at 568-69. Thus, applying Ratzlaf, we defined “willfulness” in cases brought under § 2(b) and § 1001 in the Federal Election law context to require the prosecution to prove “that defendant knew of the treasurers’ reporting obligations, that he attempted to frustrate those obligations, and that he knew his conduct was unlawful.” Curran, 20 F.3d at 569.
Because the Curran court’s “willfulness” instruction was legally deficient in that it did not charge the jury that Curran had to have knowledge of the illegality of his actions, we vacated Curran’s convictions on the substantive counts, 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Most significantly, however, we vacated Curran’s § 371 “conspiracy to defraud” conviction because critical aspects of Cur-ran’s mens rea were lacking, including proof that he knew his actions to be illegal. We held that the district court’s misstatement of the legal standard for “willfulness” “undermined not only the substantive counts, but the conspiracy [to defraud] one as well. The essence of conspiracy is an agreement to commit an act that is illegal.” Curran, 20 F.3d at 571. “The comments we have previously made about the failings of the instruction on intent apply to the conspiracy [to defraud] count as well.” Id. “On retrial, the instruction on intent as to the conspiracy count must track those applicable to the substantive counts.” Id. (quoting United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1100 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 955, 110 S.Ct. 368, 107 L.Ed.2d 354 (1989)).
Both logic and our decision in Curran dictate our holding here. The government in this case has conceded that it has failed to prove that Alston “willfully” structured under Ratzlaf. Therefore, the charge against Alston for conspiracy to defraud, which was premised exclusively on Alston’s structuring activity, must be vacated for failure to prove the mens rea (knowledge of illegality) required not only by the underlying substantive offense of structuring, but also by the conspiracy to defraud by structuring.
In the present case, the indictment, in charging Alston with conspiracy to defraud, relied exclusively on allegations of his structuring activity. The indictment reads in relevant part:
From on or about July 28, 1988 to on or about December 9, 1988 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, defendants
MICHAEL DAVID ALSTON, and RICHARD ROSA
did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together with an unindicted co-conspirator, and others unknown to the grand jury:
a. to defraud the United States and the Department of the Treasury, an agency of the United States, by impairing, obstructing, and defeating its lawful governmental function of collecting data and reports of currency transactions in excess of $10,000; and
*720b. to knowingly and willfully structure, and attempt, aid, abet and cause the structuring of, financial transactions with a domestic financial institution for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).
“Structuring” entails the breaking down of large amounts of U.S. currency into smaller amounts of less than $10,000 preliminary to transacting business with a financial institution in an attempt to avoid the CTR reporting requirements.
Indictment ¶ 7 (emphasis added).
The indictment, in charging conspiracy to defraud, asserts only that Alston impaired the United States and Treasury “in its lawful governmental function of collecting data and reports of currency transactions in excess of $10,000,” language that sounds in structuring. Indeed, the entire indictment speaks only to structuring activities and contains no allegations that Alston defrauded the government in any other respect. Because the indictment is narrowly drawn to rest solely on the alleged facts of structuring, and because it is conceded that Alston lacked the requisite mental state to be guilty of structuring, Alston’s conviction on unspecified broader grounds cannot be sustained. See United States v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir.1987) (where indictment was narrowly drawn to state that defendants conspired to defraud the IRS in its collection of information with regard to currency transactions, the defendant could not be convicted of conspiracy to defraud based on his money laundering operations).
Moreover, the government has conceded that its theory against Alston for fraud against the United States is nothing more than structuring. See Gov’t Supp.Mem., June 30, 1995 at 2 (“[T"]he basis for our definition of the underlying legal obligation/legal prohibition to make out a case of an agreement to defraud the government is found at 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).”). As a consequence, the government offered the same body of evidence at trial to support both the charge against Alston for “conspiracy to defraud” and the charge against him for “conspiracy to structure.” The government neither charged, nor attempted to prove at trial, that Alston engaged in any fraudulent activity separate from, or in addition to, what can only be characterized as “structuring.”
Despite this concession and the proof at trial, and even though the only charges found in the indictment describe the act of structuring, the government argues that Alston’s “conspiracy to defraud” conviction did not require proof of the “willfulness” required for a structuring conviction. The government contends instead that Aston was guilty of participating in a so-called “Klein conspiracy” “to defraud the United States by obstructing or impeding the IRS in its functions and duties under the Bank Secrecy Act to collect analyze, and disseminate information contained in CTR reports.” (Appellee’s Brief at ll).17 Because establishing a true Klein conspiracy under the “defraud” clause does not generally require proof of knowledge of illegality, the government contends that its proof that Aston knew of the bank’s CTR filing requirements is a sufficient showing of mens rea to sustain his conviction for conspiracy to defraud.
We cannot discern any difference between the government’s “defraud” scenario and the “structuring” scenario of which Aston was acquitted. Both conspiracies involve structuring prior to the 1994 amendment to § 5324. Therefore, given the indictment and *721the proofs at trial, we conclude that to obtain a conviction under either the “defraud” or “offense” clause of § 371, the government had to prove that Alston knew that his structuring activities were illegal. See Ratzlaf, supra. Although we do not foreclose the possibility of convicting a defendant under § 371’s “defraud” clause based on charges in addition to or different from pre-1994 acts of structuring, as we have just discussed, the present indictment, under paragraph 7(a), charged no more or less than a straight-out structuring conspiracy.
Notably, the cases that have upheld convictions for conspiracy to defraud under § 371 have all involved additional charges in the indictment and additional evidence produced at trial, over and beyond that required for a conviction for pre-1994 structuring. For instance, in United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1316, 131 L.Ed.2d 197 (1995), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to defraud under § 371 despite reversing their antistructuring convictions.
In Jackson, however, the indictment, in charging the § 371 “defraud” count, “never mentions a structuring violation or the relevant antistructuring statutes.” Id. at 870. Furthermore, Jackson involved extensive “other evidence” beyond structuring activity demonstrating a conspiracy to defraud the United States, id. at 868, including record evidence that the defendants had no wage or other income, id. at 869, and yet had spent over $300,000 to purchase homes and exotic automobiles. Id. at 869.
Because, in the present case, the charge against Alston for “conspiracy to defraud” was nothing more than a charge of conspiracy to structure, we will reverse Alston’s conviction where his conviction was not based on proof that he had “willfully” structured, as required under Ratzlaf. Where either Congress or the Supreme Court has spoken on the required level of mens rea required to obtain a conviction for structuring, the government may not subvert that mandate by juggling the “defraud” and “offense” clauses of § 371 so as to substitute one for the other.
If the “offense” clause of § 371 specifically covers an act or offense and the indictment charges only that act or offense as having been committed, and the proofs at trial reveal no more than such acts of offense, a defendant not guilty under the “offense” clause cannot alternatively be convicted under the broad “defraud” clause of § 371.
IV.
Because the indictment here charged no more than a conspiracy to defraud the United States by structuring and the proofs at trial established no more than a conspiracy to defraud the United States by structuring, we will reverse Alston’s conviction.

. A "Klein conspiracy” is discussed at note 13, infra.

. In this opinion, wc discuss only Alston’s argument that his § 371 conspiracy must be vacated, as wc find no merit in Alston's other ground for appeal, i.c., that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Alston's failure to file tax returns in 1987 and 1988.
Alston had also originally raised a third ground for appeal: that the district court had erred in enhancing his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. However, by letter filed February 16, 1995, Alston abandoned this ground for appeal.

. After factoring in all costs, each vehicle cost approximately $83,000.

.Internal Revenue Code section 60501 requires "[a]ny person ... who is engaged in a trade or business, and who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions)” to file a return identifying the person from whom the cash was received, the amount of the cash received, and the date and nature of the transaction. 26 U.S.C. § 60501(a), (b). Structuring transactions to evade the reporting requirements of § 60501 is prohibited. 26 U.S.C. § 60501(f).
Because the statute of limitations for structuring under section 60501 had run, Alston was not charged with such a violation.

. In 1970, Congress enacted 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), which provided that financial institutions such as banks arc obligated to file CTR’s for cash transactions in excess of $10,000. See 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (reporting requirement); 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(a)(1) ($10,000 floor).

. In 1986, Congress enacted an "antistructuring" provision, 31 U.S.C. § 5324, which provides that no person shall, "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a) ... structure ... any transaction with one or more financial institutions.” 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).

. At all times relevant to this appeal, 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a) provided criminal penalties only for "willful” violations of § 5313 or 5324. Prior to its amendment in 1994, § 5322 read as follows:
A person willfully violating this subchapter [31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.] or a, regulation prescribed under this subchapter (except section 5315 of this title or a regulation prescribed under section 5315) shall be fined not more then $250,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
31 U.S.C. § 5322(a). Section 5324 was subsequently amended in 1994 to provide its own penalty provision. The 1994 amendment did not impose a "willfulness” requirement. See n. 12, infra.

. Section 103.1 l(gg) of the C.F.R. defines "structuring” as follows:
Structure (structuring). [A] person structures a transaction if that person, acting alone, or in conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons, conducts or attempts to conduct one or more transactions in currency, in any amount, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements under section 103.22 of this part. "In any manner” includes, but is not limited to, the breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below $10,000, or the conduct of a transaction, or scries of currency transactions, including transactions at or below $10,000.
31 C.F.R. § 103.1 l(gg).

. Section 103.22(a)(1) of the C.F.R. provides that "[ejach financial institution other than a casino or the Postal Service shall file a report of each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to such financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.” 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(a)(1).

. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), a person who causes an act to be done which if directly performed by himself would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as if he had committed the act himself. 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). In this case. Count II of the indictment charged Alston under § 2(b) with causing the bank to fail in its statutory duty to file CTR’s.

. After the Supreme Court decided Ratzlaf, Congress eliminated the willfulness requirement for structuring convictions by amending 18 U.S.C. § 5324 to contain its own criminal penalty provision. The penalty provision of § 5324, unlike § 5322, docs not require willfulness. 1994 Ricgle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act, Pub.L. No. 103-325, § 411, 108 Stat. 2253 (1994). Thus, following the 1994 amendment, the mens rea requirement for a structuring conviction is met if the government merely establishes that the defendant had the purpose of causing a financial institution to not file a required report.
In light of the 1994 amendment to § 5324, we observe that the instant situation is unlikely to occur again.

. The term "Klein conspiracy" comes from the Second Circuit case of United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1957), and has become the generic term for a conspiracy to frustrate the government (particularly the IRS) in its lawful information gathering functions. See, e.g. United States v. Montalvo, 820 F.2d 686 (5th Cir.1987) (defendant convicted under the defraud clause of § 371 for conspiracy to impede the IRS in the ascertainment and collection of revenue by laundering money in order to disguise the true source of United States currency).

. As Justice Jackson once stated, conspiracy, "chameleon-like, takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 447, 69 S.Ct. 716, 720, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949).

. Judge Roth, writing in dissent claims that wc have misread United States v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560 (3d Cir.1994). She charges that our reading of Curran would lead to a conflict with United States v. Vazquez, 319 F.2d 381 (3d Cir.1963).
Vazquez, however, said no more than: "[t]hc laUcr conspiracy [to defraud the United States] is itself the substantive offense, and a count of an indictment drawn under it need refer to no other statute than § 371” — a statement to which we have referred in text, supra, at page 718.
Curran, therefore, cannot conflict with Vazquez: first, because the Vazquez statement is dicta and second, because each of the two cases deals with vastly different subject matters and with vastly different principles. Hence, neither Vazquez nor any other authority cited by the *719dissent trenches upon the principle that where the Supreme Court or Congress has identified and specifically considered particular conduct and has ruled specifically with respect to that conduct, as the Supreme Court has ruled in Ratzlaf, effect must be given to the ruling and standard prescribed not only for the specific offense but also for the conspiracy to commit that offense.

. Section 1001 prohibits the making of a false statement or the concealment of a material fact within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

. As previously explained, supra at 717 n. 13, the term "Klein conspiracy" is derived from United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 365, 2 L.Ed.2d 354 (1958). A Klein conspiracy is comprised of three elements: "(1) the existence of an agreement, (2) an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the [agreement's] objectives, and (3) an intent on the part of the conspirators to agree, as well as to defraud the United States.” United States v. Shoup, 608 F.2d 950, 956 (3d Cir.1979). Several courts have sustained Klein convictions when the evidence sufficed to prove an accompanying "intent and purpose of impeding and obstructing the IRS in the collection of revenue and the performance of its duties.” U.S. v. Vogt, 910 F.2d 1184, 1203 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1083, 111 S.Ct. 955, 112 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1991). See United States v. Montalvo, 820 F.2d 686, 690 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Browning, 723 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir.1984).