Moskal v. United States
1990 U.S. LEXIS 6119, 112 L. Ed. 2d 449, 111 S.Ct. 461 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A genuine document, such as a state-issued vehicle title, that contains materially false information constitutes a "falsely made" security for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 if it was procured with fraudulent intent. The term "falsely made" is not limited to forgeries or counterfeits but also encompasses documents that are false in content.
Facts:
- Raymond Moskal's associates purchased used cars in Pennsylvania and rolled back their odometers.
- The associates then physically altered the original Pennsylvania vehicle titles to reflect the lower, false mileage figures.
- Moskal sent these altered Pennsylvania titles to an accomplice in Virginia.
- The accomplice submitted the altered titles to Virginia state authorities.
- Unaware of the alterations, Virginia officials issued new, 'washed' Virginia titles that incorporated the false mileage figures.
- These new, washed titles were sent back to Pennsylvania, where Moskal received them for use in selling the cars to unsuspecting buyers.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government indicted Raymond Moskal in federal trial court for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
- A jury convicted Moskal on the charges.
- Moskal, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the 'washed' titles were genuine and not 'falsely made'.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Moskal's conviction, finding the titles were 'falsely made'.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on the meaning of 'falsely made'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a validly issued vehicle title that incorporates fraudulently tendered odometer readings constitute a 'falsely made' security within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2314?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A validly issued vehicle title containing fraudulent information is a 'falsely made' security under 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The Court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of 'falsely made' is broad enough to include documents that are 'made to contain false, or incorrect, information.' This interpretation avoids rendering the term 'falsely made' superfluous, as a narrower reading would make it redundant with 'forged' or 'counterfeited.' The legislative history of § 2314 shows a broad congressional purpose to combat interstate trafficking in fraudulent securities, and title-washing schemes fall squarely within this category of fraud. The Court rejected the argument that the common law required a narrow definition, finding that the common law itself was divided on the term's meaning and that congressional purpose can override a common-law definition when necessary.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. A validly issued vehicle title containing fraudulent information is not a 'falsely made' security. The dissent argued that 'falsely made' is a legal term of art with a long-established common-law meaning equivalent to forgery, which refers to falsity in the execution of a document, not falsity in its content. A document containing erroneous information is merely 'false,' not 'falsely made.' The majority’s interpretation ignores this established meaning and creates an unnatural reading of the statute, violating the principle that Congress is presumed to adopt the common-law meaning of legal terms. The phrase 'falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited' is a classic legal iteration describing the single crime of forgery, and the rule of lenity should prevent the Court from expanding its scope to punish a crime not clearly enumerated by the statute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 by interpreting 'falsely made' to include falsity of content, not just falsity of execution. It rejects a strict adherence to the narrow, common-law definition of forgery, establishing that a document can be 'falsely made' even if it is a genuine instrument issued by a legitimate authority. This precedent empowers federal prosecutors to target sophisticated fraud schemes that exploit legitimate processes to create fraudulent documents, and it clarifies that the rule of lenity only applies after all other tools of statutory interpretation have failed to resolve an ambiguity.
Unlock the full brief for Moskal v. United States