(B)  Crimes of Moral Turpitude.[90]

 

Convictions for violation of regulatory statutes generally are not considered to involve moral turpitude because there is nothing inherently wrong with engaging in the particular activity, except that someone has passed a law against it.  Convictions for violating the following laws do not involve moral turpitude, unless the statute violated has fraud or evil intent as an essential element. 

            (1) Liquor Law Offenses

 

Liquor law violations have generally been considered regulatory only, and not to involve moral turpitude.

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

Matter of G, 7 I. & N. Dec. 114 (BIA 1956) (conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. § § 2803(a) and 2812, transportation and possession of distilled spirits without tax stamps affixed thereto, is not crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Matter of A, 6 I. & N. Dec. 242 (BIA 1954) (removal of untaxed spirits, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 404, held not to involve moral turpitude).

 

Matter of J, 2 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA, AG 1944) (conviction of unlawful sale of liquor to a Native American over whom the government exercises control, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 241, is not an offense involving moral turpitude).

 

Matter of H, 1 I. & N. Dec. 394 (BIA 1943) (carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the special tax required by § 3281 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, under 26 U.S.C. § 1397(a)(1), is not held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, since the statute is merely a revenue, regulatory, or licensing statute).

 

Second Circuit:

 

United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 113 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1940) (before the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, prosecutions under Internal Revenue statutes were but alternatives for prosecutions under the Volstead Act, and convictions under these various statutes would have been treated alike as far as any question of moral turpitude was concerned, since, except under rare circumstances, the manufacture or sale of liquor was unlawful and the manufacturer or seller could acquire no right to do a lawful business by merely complying with internal revenue statutes and paying taxes; hence there would in no case be any specific intent to defraud the government but only a general purpose to disregard the prohibition laws; but that since the repeal the situation would seem to be different as the business could thereafter be lawfully conducted by the payment of internal revenue taxes and the specific intent became one of enhancing profits by evading taxes, rather than of satisfying the demand for liquor which the Prohibition Act refused to sanction).

Iorio v. Day, 34 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1929) (not every violation of a prohibition law is a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Fifth Circuit:

 

United States v. Smith, 420 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1970) (Alabama misdemeanor conviction of possessing tax paid alcoholic beverages in a ‘dry’ county, under 29 Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958, § 98 (4621), was not a crime involving moral turpitude for impeachment purposes).

 

Coykendall v. Skrmetta, 22 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1927) (conviction for winemaking for personal use of 150 gallons of wine was held not to be a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

            (2)  Regulatory Offenses

 

(1)    United States Supreme Court:

 

Chaunt v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 147, 5 L.Ed.2d 120 (1960) (conviction of distributing handbills in violation of city ordinance, concealed in the course of a naturalization proceeding, held not to be a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

Matter of Mahmoud, No. A24-883-732, 14 Immigr. Rep. B1-14 (BIA 1994) (possession of altered food stamps with knowledge that they were altered, but without use or intent to use them unlawfully, held not a CMT).

 

Matter of S, 9 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 1962) (violation of gambling laws not a CMT).

 

Matter of K, 8 I. & N. Dec. 310 (BIA 1959) (ration law violation not a CMT).

 

Matter of B, 6 I. & N. Dec. 98 (BIA 1954) (conviction of conspiracy to violate New York Banking Law § § 340 (which prohibits the conduct of a small loan business without a license) and 357 (which prohibits a nonlicensee from charging more than 6 percent interest) (usury) is not a crime involving moral turpitude since those sections are only a licensing and regulatory enactment, and do not require any criminal intent, as negligent overcollection of interest is sufficient for conviction).

Matter of P, 5 I. & N. Dec. 582 (BIA 1953) (ration law violation not a CMT).

 

Matter of J, 4 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 1951) (conviction of attempt to escape from reformatory in violation of Chapter 268, § 16 of the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts is “malum prohibitum” and does not involve moral turpitude, since “escape” is not defined by statute and the wording of the statute does not require a specific criminal intent).

 

Matter of J, 2 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 1944) (selling liquor to Native Americans not a CMT). 

 

Fifth Circuit:

 

Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 1997) (importation of pancake turtles in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 did not involve moral turpitude because it was illegal only because the defendant failed to complete the proper paperwork).

 

District Courts:

 

United States v. Carrollo, 30 F.Supp. 3 (W.D. Mo. 1939) (conducting a lottery was not considered CMT where intent to defraud was not a necessary element of the offense).

 

[90] See N. Tooby, J. Rollin & J. Foster, Crimes of Moral Turpitude § 9.44 (2005).

Fourth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPIUTDE " SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
Mohamed v. Holder, 769 F.3d 885 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2014) (Virgina conviction for violation of VaCodeAnn. 18.2-472.1, failure to register as a sex offender, is not a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes, since it is merely a regulatory offense), disagreeing with Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2007).