Section 1001's jurisdictional requirements are satisfied if:
- the agency had the power to act on the statement, United States v. DiFonzo, 603 F.2d 1260, 1264 (7th Cir. 1979) cert. denied 444 U.S. 1018 (1980);
- there was an "intended" relationship between the act and the Federal government, United States v. Stanford, 589 F.2d 285, 297 (7th Cir. 1978) cert. denied 440 U.S. 983 (1979); or
- the act was calculated to induce government action, United States v. Barbato, 471 F.2d 918, 922 (1st Cir. 1973).
Courts have frequently held that the phrase "matter within the jurisdiction," as used in Section 1001, means a matter regarding which the department or agency in question has the authority to take action. See Ogden v. United States, 303 F.2d 724, 743 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 376 U.S. 973 (1964); United States v. Ross, 77 F.3d 1525 (7th Cir. 1996)(false statements within the jurisdiction of the Department of Education). In United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322-23 (6th Cir. 1989), the following examples were cited as false statements that could be prosecuted under Section 1001 although indirectly made to the Federal government (so-called indirect submissions):
Courts have . . . affirmed § 1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision. See, e.g., United States v. Kirby, 587 F.2d 876, 881 (7th Cir. 1978) (false inspection and weight certificates submitted in transaction subject to regulation by Department of Agriculture); United States v. Dick, 744 F.2d 546, 554 (7th Cir. 1984)(false statements to surety insured by Small Business Administration); United States v. Brack, 747 F.2d 1142, 1150-52 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1216 (1985)(false statements to surety insured by Small Business Administration); United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 925 (1985)(false statements to private firm constructing nuclear power plant regulated by Nuclear Regulatory Commission); United States v. Wolf, 645 F.2d 23, 25-26 (10th Cir. 1981)(false statements to oil company subject to federal regulation); United States v. Matanky, 482 F.2d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1039 (1973); (false statements to insurance company acting as payment agent for Medicare); United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d 736, 739 (5th Cir. 1981)(false time sheet submitted to accounting office of community organization receiving CETA funds); United States v. Cartwright, 632 F.2d 1290, 1292-93 (5th Cir. 1980)(false statements to savings and loan association insured by FSLIC).
[cited in JM 9-42.001]