Fraud against the government involves moral turpitude. 

 

Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951) (conspiring to defraud the United States, possessing whiskey and alcohol with intent to sell it in fraud of law and evade the tax, and removing and concealing liquor with intent to defraud the United States of the tax, under 18 U.S.C. § 88 (now 18 U.S.C. § 371), and 26 U.S.C. § § 1155(f), 1440 and 1441 (now 26 U.S.C. § § 2806(f), 3320, 3321 (1934 ed.)), held crimes of moral turpitude, since fraud was an essential element);

Morgano v. Pilliod, 299 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1962);

Carrollo v. Bode, 204 F.2d 220 (8th Cir. 1953);

Klapholz v. Esperdy, 201 F.Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), aff’d, 302 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. den., 371 U.S. 891, 9 L.Ed.2d 124, 83 S.Ct. 183 (1962) (smuggling diamonds of a value of $243,810 into the United States with intent to defraud the government of the duty held CMT);

Matter of D, 9 I. & N. Dec. 605 (BIA 1962) (conviction for smuggling with intent to defraud United States);

Matter of M, 8 I. & N. Dec. 535 (BIA 1960);

Matter of B, 2 I. & N. Dec. 542 (BIA 1946) (conviction of smuggling goods subject to customs duty in violation of Canada Customs Act § 203(3) is deemed comparable to a violation of substantially similar provisions of § 593(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1593(b)) (which has been held not to involve moral turpitude), and since the provision of law violated does not denounce the act as a perpetration of fraud upon either the property or revenue of the Crown, nor is the act shown as accompanied by a corrupt or vicious motive, it is held such offense does not involve moral turpitude);

Matter of De S, 1 I. & N. Dec. 553 (BIA 1943) (admission by a noncitizen that she attempted to smuggle merchandise into the United States with intent to defraud the revenue of the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1593, does not constitute the admission of a crime involving moral turpitude since by the statute an attempt is not defined as a crime).

 

Immigration fraud.

 

Matter of Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225 (BIA 1980) (sale of fraudulent immigration documents is a CMT);

Matter of Serna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 581 (BIA 1992) (knowing possession of false immigration documents is not a CMT);

United States ex rel. Popoff v. Reimer, 79 F.2d 513 (2d Cir. 1935) (moral turpitude is involved in the fraud against the United States of knowingly aiding a noncitizen not entitled to naturalization to apply for or obtain citizenship).

 

            Passport fraud.

 

Bisaillon v. Hogan, 257 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. den., 358 U.S. 872, 79 S.Ct. 112, 3 L.Ed.2d 104 (1958) (passport fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, willfully and knowingly making a false statement in a passport application with intent to secure the illegal issuance of a passport, involved moral turpitude);

Matter of B, 7 I. & N. Dec. 342 (BIA 1956) (willful and knowing false statements in passport application);

Matter of H, 3 I. & N. Dec. 236 (BIA 1948) (conviction of attempt to defraud the United States by improper use of the United States passport showing him to be a citizen of the United States and to have been born at San Francisco, Calif., for the purpose of effecting entry into the United States, knowing full well that he was not born there and was not a citizen of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 80, is an offense involving moral turpitude);

Matter of G, 1 I. & N. Dec. 73 (BIA, AG 1941) (assuming that applicable Romanian law makes it a criminal offense to obtain a passport by fraud, such offense does not involve moral turpitude when not accompanied by false swearing amounting to perjury).

 

            Social Security.

 

            The offense of misuse of a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), may or may not be considered a crime of moral turpitude. For example, use of the card to open a checking account is arguably not a CMT.   See also § 9.67, infra. 

 

Hyder v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2007) (federal conviction for misuse of a social security number [applying for drivers license] obtained by fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A), is a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes, since the statute requires an “intent to deceive”), disagreeing with Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.2000).

Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.2000) (use of a false social security card for purposes of employment and building credit is not a CMT).

Matter of Serna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 581 (BIA 1992) (use or possession of a false social security document with specific intent to defraud is a CMT).

 

Student loan fraud.

 

Izedonmwen v. INS, 37 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 1994) (conviction of obtaining Pell grants by fraud, in violation of the Higher Education Act of 1965, § 490(a), 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a), “knowingly and willfully obtaining by fraud and false pretenses Pell grant funds,” was a crime of moral turpitude, even though the defendant actually used the funds to attend pharmacy school).

 

Telephone fraud.

 

A conviction of illegally accessing electronic systems (to make free telephone calls) permitted conviction if any one of three unlawful intents was present, and was therefore a divisible statute.[1]  Although theft has been considered a crime of moral turpitude when the evidence shows a permanent taking was intended, the intents required to violate this statute did not meet this test.[2]  The statute required the purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain.  Moreover, they did not require fraud.  Therefore, the BIA held the conviction did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. Stealing cellular telephone air time in order to relay calls to foreign countries, however, was held to be a crime involving moral turpitude.[3]

 

Welfare fraud. 

 

Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668, (7th Cir. July 1, 2005) (Illinois conviction of illegally purchasing food stamps, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17B-5, was a crime involving moral turpitude, for purposes of triggering deportation, since it was a species of fraud, and because crimes of deceit are the classic exemplars of moral turpitude); see Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951);

Flores v. INS, 66 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1995), opinion withdrawn, 73 F.3d 258 (9th Cir. 1996), opinion superseded on rehearing, 74 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 1996) (conviction of welfare fraud constitutes a crime of moral turpitude, precluding noncitizen from demonstrating Good Moral Character during the relevant time period);

Miller v. United States INS, 762 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1985) (welfare fraud held a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Fraud against other governmental operations. 

 

Stevenson v. INS, 246 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2000) (Table) (conviction of identification document fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(2) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude), citing Matter of Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225 (BIA 1980) (uttering false or counterfeit paper relating to registry of noncitizens is a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Asaba, File No. A28-392-981, 13 Immigr. Rep. B1-120 (BIA 1994) (conviction for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(g)(2), giving fraudulent name and social security number);

Matter of Acosta, 14 I. & N. Dec. 338 (BIA 1973) (false statement in buying firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) held CMT since fraud and materiality were essential elements);

Matter of L, 5 I. & N. Dec. 705 (BIA 1954) (fraud in obtaining unemployment benefits);

Matter of A, 5 I. & N. Dec. 52 (1953) (falsely issuing narcotic prescription);

Matter of R, 5 I. & N. Dec. 29 (BIA 1952) (draft evasion by signing false selective service affidavit);

Matter of B, 3 I. & N. Dec. 270 (BIA 1948) (impersonating federal officer);

Matter of M, 1 I. & N. Dec. 619 (BIA 1943) (false claim to U.S. citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911). 

 

Conspiracy to defraud as an independent offense may in itself involve moral turpitude. 

 

Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951) (conspiring to defraud the United States, possessing whiskey and alcohol with intent to sell it in fraud of law and evade the tax, and removing and concealing liquor with intent to defraud the United States of the tax, under 18 U.S.C. § 88 (now 18 U.S.C. § 371), and 26 U.S.C. § § 1155(f), 1440 and 1441 (now 26 U.S.C. § § 2806(f), 3320, 3321 (1934 ed.)), held crimes of moral turpitude, since fraud was an essential element);

Matter of E, 9 I. & N. Dec. 421 (BIA 1961) (conviction of filing false statements with S.E.C. held CMT, even though no pecuniary loss was necessary as an element of the offense);

Matter of M, 8 I. & N. Dec. 535 (BIA 1960).

 

Possession of implements with intention to produce false documents.

 

Babafunmi v. United States, 210 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2000) (Table) (unlawfully and knowingly possessing document-making implements with the intent to produce false identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(5) (West Supp. 1999), constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, since the BIA reasonably concluded fraud was an essential element).

[80] 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)(1).

[81] Matter of Chaudhry Afzal, No. A73 042 981 (BIA 2000), citing Matter of F, 2 I. & N. Dec. 517 (BIA 1946).

[82] United States v. Qadeer, 953 F.Supp. 1570 (S.D.Ga. 1997).

BIA

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - FRAUD - WELFARE FRAUD
Matter of Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA Aug. 13, 2010) (California violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 10980(c)(2), welfare fraud, is a crime involving moral turpitude).

Second Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - FRAUD - FALSE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS
Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) (Connecticut conviction for violation of C.G.S 53a-119(6), 53a-122(a)(4), first degree larceny by defrauding a public community, which requires intent to wrongfully deprive another of property by making a knowingly false claim for benefits, is a crime involving moral turpitude).

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - FRAUD - DEFRAUDING THE PUBLIC
Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) (Connecticut conviction of first degree larceny in the form of "defrauding a public community," in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a-122(a)(4) and 53a-119(6), is a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), " a conviction for defrauding a public community requires proof of an intent to wrongfully deprive another of property by making a knowingly false claim for benefits").

Sixth Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - FRAUD OFFENSES - FALSE STATEMENT TO GOVERNMENT AGENT
Kellerman v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (applying divisible statute analysis to 18 U.S.C. 371, 1001 [conspiracy to commit crime or defraud United States; false or fraudulent statement to government agent], presumably accepting argument that a conviction for these offenses might not necessarily involve moral turpitude).

Eighth Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - FALSE DOCUMENTS - FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Lateef v. DHS, 592 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010) (federal conviction for violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(A), using unlawfully obtained social security number, is a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes), declining to follow Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2000).