Crimes of Moral Turpitude

 

Mail fraud.

 

Ponzi v. Ward, 7 F.Supp. 736 (D.Mass. 1934);

Matter of Haller, 12 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 1967). 

 

Extortion by use of the mail.

 

Matter of GT, 4 I. & N. Dec. 446 (BIA 1951) (conviction of sending threatening letters through the United States mails with intent to extort money from the addressee, contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § § 338, 338a, is an offense involving moral turpitude);

Cf. Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 196 (BIA 1944);

Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 190 (BIA 1942).

 

Mail theft is a CMT.

 

Okoroha v. INS, 715 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1983) (possession of stolen mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1708 was a “crime of moral turpitude” since knowledge of the stolen character of the mail was required as an essential element of the offense);

Matter of F, 7 I. & N. Dec. 386 (BIA 1957) (taking a letter from the U.S. mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 involves moral turpitude, as the statute refers to a larcenous taking);

Matter of B, 3 I. & N. Dec. 270 (BIA 1948) (conviction of stealing mail from letter boxes in vestibules in violation of § 194 of the Criminal Code, old 18 U.S.C. § 317 (see new 18 U.S.C. § § 1708, 1702) is an offense involving moral turpitude).

 

Using mail to defraud has been held to be a crime involving moral turpitude. 

 

Nason v. INS, 394 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 830, 21 L.Ed. 101, 89 S.Ct. 98 (1968) (using mails to defraud);

Ponzi v. Ward, 7 F.Supp. 736 (D.Mass. 1934) (using mails to defraud).

 

Some mail-related offenses, however, do NOT involve moral turpitude.

 

United States v. Carrollo, 30 F.Supp. 3 (D.Mo. 1939) (mailing a letter concerning a lottery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 336, held not a crime involving moral turpitude, since writing a letter concerning a lottery, even for the purposes of selling an interest in it, was not an act of “baseness, vileness or depravity” since even conducting a lottery is not an act of moral turpitude and since churches and states have conducted lotteries and do so now where not prohibited by statute);

Matter of F, 7 I. & N. Dec. 386 (BIA 1957) (conviction of obstruction of correspondence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1702, does not involve moral turpitude);

Matter of MB, 3 I. & N. Dec. 66 (BIA 1947) (where a conviction for taking mail from an authorized depository for mail matter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 317, is predicated upon an information which does not shed any light on the circumstances under or the purpose for which the mail was taken, it cannot be found that the crime is one which necessarily involves moral turpitude);

Matter of B, 2 I. & N. Dec. 867 (BIA 1947) (conviction of willfully damaging mail boxes and damaging other property in violation, respectively, of Canada Criminal Code § 510(d)(3) and (d)(5) are not shown to involve moral turpitude, where the statutory provisions do not require base or depraved conduct, the records of convictions do not allege such conduct, and the acts described by the offender do not show such conduct, since the term “willfully,” as contained in § 510, is defined so broadly that it covers a case of what courts in the United States would regard as gross or wanton negligence);

Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 190 (BIA 1942) (mailing an obscene letter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 334 is not a crime involving moral turpitude, since a letter suggesting fornication would be obscene, but the actual commission of the fornication would not be a crime of moral turpitude).

 

Mail – Sending a threatening letter NOT CMT.

 

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 196 (BIA 1944) (conviction of sending a threatening letter through the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 338a(b) does not necessarily involve moral turpitude, since the offense does not require an intention which is inherently turpitudinous in nature).

 

            Mailing an Obscene Letter is NOT considered a CMT.[83]

[83] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(b)(8).