United States v. Furer
| Decision Date | 10 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 15609.,15609. |
| Citation | 47 F. Supp. 402 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FURER et al. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leo V. Silverstein, U. S. Atty., Walter S. Binns, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice and James E. Harrington, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for the government.
Charles H. Carr, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Edward Furer.
Oliver O. Clark and Robert Smith, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant K. O. Anderson.
L. R. Brigham, of Los Angeles, Cal., and George D. Blair, of North Hollywood, Cal., for defendant David Bushnell.
YANKWICH, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The demurrers of the defendants to the indictment are overruled.
The indictment charges conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit an offense against the United States. The alleged object of the conspiracy is to secure a contract from Lockheed-Vega Corporations for the making of tools and parts of military airplanes by bribery or giving a commission or percentage of the gross revenues to diverse persons employed by the named corporations.
Through the arrangement, set forth in the indictment, for the construction of airplanes on a "fixed fee" or "cost-plus fee contract", the airplane corporations became the agents of the United States in letting the contracts (or subcontracts) for parts. The employes of the companies did not become officers of the United States, so as to make the provisions relating to giving and acceptance of a bribe applicable. See Section 91 and 207, Title 18 U.S.C.A. and see Ex parte O'Leary, 7 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 956.
So that, if we were to assume that the charge is conspiracy to commit the offenses denounced by Sections 91 and 207, Title 18 U.S.C.A., the indictment would have to be held faulty.
However, the act of bribery pleaded charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States. No pecuniary loss to the United States is averred. But this is not necessary. If the object of the conspiracy be to deprive the United States of its rights and privileges or the proper functioning of any agency through which it acts, the offense is complete. See Crawford v. United States, 1909, 212 U.S. 183, 191, 192, 29 S.Ct. 260, 53 L.Ed. 465, 15 Ann.Cas. 392; Haas v. Henkel, 1910, 216 U.S. 462, 479, 30 S.Ct. 249, 54 L.Ed. 569, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112; Hammerschmidt v. United States, 1924, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S. Ct. 511, 68 L.Ed. 968; Pan American Petroleum Company v. United States, 1927, 273 U.S. 456, 500, 47 S.Ct. 416, 71 L.Ed. 734; Curley v. United States, 1 Cir., 1904, 130 F. 1, 2; Wallenstein v. United States, 3 Cir., 1928, 25 F.2d 708; Falter v. United States, 2 Cir., 1928, 23 F.2d 420, 421; Langer v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Raff
...and place of trust and to make opportunity for the commission of a fraud upon the United States. The dictum in United States v. Furer, D.C.S.D.Cal.1942, 47 F.Supp. 402, is not contra. The prime contractor there was a corporation; here a partnership. The indictment avers that Gilboy was in c......
-
United States v. Bell
...Schwimmer, 1929, 279 U.S. 644, 654, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889. 2 Cr.Code § 37, 18 U.S.C.A. § 88; See my opinion in United States v. Furer, D.C.Cal.1942, 47 F.Supp. 402, 405. 3 See Yankwich: The Lawless Enforcement of the Law, IX So.Cal.Law Review, 1935, pp. 19 and 20. 4 4 American Jurispru......
-
United States v. Canella
...such an officer or who is acting for, or on behalf of, the United States in any official capacity. See my opinion in United States v. Furer, D.C.Cal.1942, 47 F.Supp. 402. The givers of bribes are not punishable under this section, but under Section 91, 18 U.S.C.A., although it has been held......
-
United States v. Weinberg
...Administration would be the actual, real, true, and accurate cost of such books, supplies, and equipment." In United States v. Furer, D.C. S.D.Cal.1942, 47 F.Supp. 402, 403, a trial quite similar to this one, Lockheed and Vega Aircraft Corporations had "`cost plus fixed fee'" contracts with......