A significant practical application of 29 U.S.C. § 504 occurred in connection with the prosecution in United States v. Scaccia, 514 F. Supp. 1353 (N.D.N.Y. 1981), where a union business manager was convicted in 1975 for embezzlement and was imprisoned for two months and placed on probation for 58 months. One of the conditions of probation was to "refrain from violation of any law." Subsequent investigation determined that the defendant was performing the duties of union business manager in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 504. Rather than pursuing prosecution under section 504, the probationary sentence was revoked upon a finding that the probationer's violation of section 504 was a violation of the above condition.
There is also authority for imposing specific conditions of probation that an individual not hold union office. See United States v. Barraso, 372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967); Berra v. United States, 221 F.2d 590 (8th Cir. 1955), aff'd on other grounds, 351 U.S. 131 (1956) (pre-29 U.S.C. § 504 case).
Removal from union office also has been effected under the RICO forfeiture statute and pursuant to civil injunctive relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 1963; United States v. Rubin, 559 F.2d 975, 990-993 (5th Cir. 1977); 18 U.S.C. § 1964; United States v. Teamsters Local 560, 581 F. Supp. 279 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985).
[cited in JM 9-138.180]