False Statements and Venue
The Congress did not expressly provide special venue provisions in
U.S.C. § 1001 cases. United States v. Barsanti, 943 F.2d 428,
(4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 936 (1992). Venue for false
statements under § 1001 is proper in the district in which the false
statements are made, filed, or ultimately submitted. United States v.
Stephenson, 895 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v.
F. Supp. 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). Except as otherwise mandated by statute,
proper in any district in which the offense was committed. Fed. R. Crim. P.
Where the offense is of a continuing nature, venue is proper in any district
where the acts constituting the offense were begun, continued or completed,
unless otherwise provided by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3237. Although
be alleged in every Federal indictment, it is not an element of the charged
offense. United States v. Kaytso, 868 F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th Cir.
The government has the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah, 924 F.2d 298, 301 (D.C.
1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 901 (1992).|
The Supreme Court has cautioned that the venue rules are not to be
treated lightly. United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276 (1961).
Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been interpreted to
a guarantee of trial in the state and district in which the crime was
If prosecution is brought in an improper venue, timely objection will result
dismissal of the indictment and prevent further proceedings if the statute
limitations has run.
Several courts have specifically stated that preparation for the
commission of the crime is not part of the crime, and therefore, venue is
proper in the district of preparation. These courts view preparation as
independent from commission. A different result should be reached when the
"preparation" is an integral part of the commission of the crime, and it can
fairly be said that by doing the act of preparation the defendant "began"
commission of the crime. Once an offense has been completed, Section 3237
the government the option of bringing prosecution in any proper district as
back as the "beginning" of the crime, as defined by the pertinent statute.
In United States v. Travis, 364 U.S. 631 (1961), the Supreme
Court was faced with the interplay of two statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Section 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The latter statute
provides that no action will be taken by the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) until certain affidavits are on file in the District of Columbia. In
Travis the issue was whether venue in the place that the affidavits
mailed was proper. The Court seized on the language in Section 9(h) of the
denying any NLRB action "until" the document was on file and the 18 U.S.C.
1001 requirement that the false statement be made within the jurisdiction of
department or agency. The Court reasoned that NRLA's Section 9(h) did not
until the affidavit was received by the NLRB, and thus, at the time of
the false statement was not within the jurisdiction of any department or
Because of the peculiar interaction of Section 9(h) with 18 U.S.C. §
the Federal government and courts have read Travis restrictively.
the exception of Travis, some cases have held venue to be proper in
place of mailing a false document.
[cited in USAM 9-42.001]