331 F.2d 598 - Scolnick v. United States — 331 F.2d 598

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2014

6 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *599Dean E. Nicholson, Haverhill, Mass., with whom Espovich & Nicholson, Haver-hill, Mass., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Sherman L. Cohn, Atty. Dept. of Justice, with whom John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Harvey L. Zuckman, Atty. Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN, and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The facts in this case are fully set forth in the opinion below, United States v. Scolnick, D.Mass., 1963, 219 F.Supp. 408. We find no merit in the appeal. The endorsement and deposit for collection of a government check known to be issued by mistake in payment of an obligation already, in fact, satisfied is the presentation •of a false claim within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231. Cf. Dimmick v. United States, 9 Cir., 1902, 116 F. 825, cert. den. 189 U.S. 509, 23 S.Ct. 850, 47 L.Ed. 923. The court was not obliged to accept the defendant’s protestations of innocence. Not only was he the principal officer and stockholder ■of the payee corporation, but the proceeds -of the checks were disbursed by him in .satisfaction of a corporate debt owed to liis father, and for wage obligations the ■nonpayment of which might have resulted in defendant’s incarceration, both reasons to suppose that he had been aware of the accounts receivable picture. Nor were direct personal benefits to the defendant required. Murray & Sorenson, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 119, 42 A.L.R.2d 628.

¶6Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.