This phrase results in a significant extension of the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 641 in that it applies to property in which the United States holds neither title nor a custodial interest. See United States v. Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 943, 949 (S.D.Cal. 1942). This extension of jurisdiction is rarely used because in most cases a theft from a government contractor will be a matter of concern primarily to local law enforcement officials. However, situations arise in which the federal interest will predominate and for which prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 should be considered; for example, the theft of property being used in a high priority federal program, the theft of property from an ordinary contractor but on such a large scale that completion of the contract is impaired, or the theft of military weapons, explosives or ammunition.
[cited in JM 9-66.200]