United States v. Reimer

• Decision Date: 28 December 1939
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. BERLANDI v. REIMER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

30 F. Supp. 767

UNITED STATES ex rel. BERLANDI v. REIMER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

December 28, 1939.

Jacob W. Rozinsky, of New York City, for relator.

John T. Cahill, of New York City (K. Bertram Friedman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

CONGER, District Judge.

The relator herein, Alberto Berlandi, has been ordered deported to Italy, pursuant to the Immigration Act of 1917, Title 8, Section 155, U.S.C., 8 U.S.C.A. § 155, which provides generally that an alien, who at any time after his entry into this country is sentenced more than once to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of any of the crimes involving moral turpitude, shall be taken into custody and deported.

The relator is now at Ellis Island, in custody, awaiting deportation. He has taken out this writ of habeas corpus to review the action of the immigration authorities, claiming that his detention and deportation are illegal.

The relator is an alien. He has been convicted in this country twice as follows:

On February 14, 1938, he was convicted on his plea of guilty of "Violation of Title 26, Section 1441 of the U.S.Code, 26 U.S. C.A. § 1441, in that he did deposit and conceal distilled spirits, thereby intending to defraud the United States of Tax on said spirits so deposited and concealed."

On May 26, 1938, he was convicted on his plea of guilty for conspiracy as defined by Title 18, Section 88, of the U.S. Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 88, in that he did conspire to violate the laws of the United States, to wit: the Internal Revenue Laws.

On each charge he was sentenced to imprisonment for a year and a day.

The sole question for the Court to decide is whether these convictions and consequent imprisonments involve moral turpitude.

Just what is moral turpitude? It is an indefinite term, and the trouble is, and has been, the application of it to the facts of each case. The following seems to be a fair and comprehensive definition of the term: "It is a vague term, its meaning depending to some extent upon the state of public morals. It is defined as anything that is done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man * * * Moral turpitude implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact whether it is punishable by law. It must not merely be mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude. Everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals is done with turpitude." 41 Corpus Juris 212.

The main controversy is with reference to the first conviction (February 14, 1938). The second conviction (May 28, 1938) had to do with a conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States. When two or more get together and agree that they deliberately will, and do enter into a scheme, which has for its purpose the violation of the laws of the land, no one can gainsay but that this involves moral turpitude.

Both crimes to which the defendant pleaded guilty are felonies; both involve fraud; both involve an intent to defraud the government. One of the component parts of Section 1441, Title 26, U.S.Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1441, which was the basis of the first conviction, is the doing of an act "with intent to defraud the United States."

There are cases which hold that crimes which involve fraud are looked upon as those involving moral turpitude. Most of these are based on such things as concealing assets in bankruptcy,...