Court Opinion

ID: 9445008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:18:11.082417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:05.914683
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It is clear that Bramblett was engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§ 286 1 or 371 2 (1952); that the conspiracy was begun by his false designation of Mrs. Swanson as his clerk; and that an overt act evidencing the conspiracy occurred each time she accepted a salary check. But Bramblett was not charged with defrauding or conspiring to defraud the United States. Instead he was charged with a “falsification by scheme” under 18 U.S. C. § 1001 (1952),3 commonly known as the false statements statute.
Because a predecessor statute reached only “false papers presented in * connection with a claim against the Government,” § 1001 was enacted to reach falsifications which involved no pecuniary loss to the United States, such as papers intended to conceal the illegal transportation of “hot oil.” United States v. Bramblett, 1955, 348 U.S. 503, 507, 75 S.Ct. 504, 507, 99 L.Ed. 594. See also United States v. Gilliland, 1941, 312 U.S. 86, 93-95, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that that section was also intended to serve as an alternative for reaching the continuing offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Yet I think the majority employs that section here for such purpose.
In my view, the offense charged here was completed for purposes of the statute of limitations when Bramblett filed the designation of Mrs. Swanson. What made the designation false when he filed it was the scheme that she would not perform services as his clerk. The fact that he thereafter reaped the fruits of the falsification achieved “by [this] scheme” does not convert that offense into a continuing one.4

 35 Stat. 1095 (1909), as amended, 40 Stat. 1016 (1918), 48 Stat. 996 (1934), 52 Stat. 197 (1938), 62 Stat. 698 (1948).

. 35 Stat. 1096 (1909), as amended, 58 Stat. 752 (1944), 62 Stat. 701 (1948).

. 48 Stat. 996 (1934), as amended, 62 Stat. 749 (1948).

 Senate Report No. 1202, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. and 48 Stat. 996.

. The situation is not too unlike that in Pendergast v. United States, 1943, 317 U.S. 412, 63 S.Ct. 268, 87 L.Ed. 368, involving a fraudulent scheme begun by a falsification beyond the three-year statutory limit but consummated within it. The Supreme Court held that where the charge was contempt for misbehavior in the presence of the court, the three-year period began to run from the date of an initial misrepresentation to the court, and was not extended by “continuous cooperation in concealing the scheme until its completion” by the distribution of ill gotten gains. Id., 317 U.S. at page 419, 63 S.Ct. at page 271. In the Court’s view, only if the charge were of broader “sweep” than the contempt at issue, e. g., for “ ‘corruptly’ obstructing or conspiring to obstruct ‘the due administration of justice,’ ” would such a fraudulent scheme have constituted a continuing offense. Id., 317 U.S. at page 420, 63 S.Ct. at page 271. On the same analogy, I think the offense of falsification by scheme is restricted in scope, and lacks the sweep of a conspiracy charge which would embrace appellant’s conduct within the statutory period.