Fraud Offenses.  Convictions of offenses requiring intent to defraud as an essential element have consistently been held to involve moral turpitude.  This applies to fraud committed against an individual.  For cases involving consular processing, the State Department has given a definition of fraud for purposes of determining the admissibility of one applying for a visa.[108]  See also § 8.6, supra.

Palmer v. INS, 4 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 1993) (Illinois fraud conviction was crime of moral turpitude);

McNaughton v. INS, 612 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1980) (Canadian conviction of conspiracy to affect market price of stock with intent to defraud);

Burr v. INS, 350 F.2d 87, 91 (9th Cir. 1965);

Rukavina v. INS, 303 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1962) (confidence game);

United States ex rel. Sollazzo v. Esperdy, 285 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1961) (bribery of amateur athlete);

Mercer v. Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (10th Cir. 1938), 305 U.S. 611, 59 S.Ct. 69, 83 L.Ed. 388 (1938);

United States ex rel. Millard v. Tuttle, 46 F.2d 342 (E.D.La. 1930) (encumbering mortgaged property with intent to defraud);

Medich v. Burmaster, 24 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1928) (concealment of assets in bankruptcy);

Portada v. Day, 16 F.2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1926) (fraudulently issuing check without funds);

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

Matter of Alarcon, 20 I. & N. Dec. 557 (BIA 1992) (mail fraud and receiving kickbacks on government contracts);

Matter of Bart, 20 I. & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1992) (Georgia conviction of writing bad checks);

Matter of Squires, 17 I. & N. Dec. 561 (BIA 1980) (Canadian conviction of theft by false pretenses);

Matter of Bader, 17 I. & N. Dec. 525 (BIA 1980) (Canadian conviction of conspiracy to defraud public of money or valuable security);

Matter of Kahlik, 17 I. & N. Dec. 518 (BIA 1980) (Michigan conviction of issuing check without funds; court held that fraud was inherent in the offense);

Matter of Logan, 17 I. & N. Dec. 367 (BIA 1980) (Arkansas conviction for passing worthless check; fraud held to be essential element);

Matter of McNaughton, 16 I. & N. Dec. 569 (BIA 1978) (Canadian conviction for securities fraud);

Matter of Martinez, 16 I. & N. Dec. 336 (BIA 1977) (a conviction of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 473, in which intent to defraud is a necessary element, is a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Katsanis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 266 (BIA 1973) (Greek conviction of attempted fraud under Article 386 of the Greek Penal Code of 1950 (Fraud) (Apate) held a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Yanez-Jaquez, 13 I. & N. Dec. 449 (BIA 1970) (Texas conviction of passing forged instrument);

Matter of McLean, 12 I. & N. Dec. 551 (BIA 1967);

Matter of Chouinard, 11 I. & N. Dec. 839 (BIA 1966) (Michigan conviction for illegal use of credit card, fraud held implied);

Matter of Ohnhauser, 10 I. & N. Dec. 501 (BIA 1964) (California);

Matter of P, 6 I. & N. Dec. 795 (BIA 1955) (selling colored margarine with intent to defraud).

 

See Matter of Colbourne, 13 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 1969) (bad check convictions not involving fraudulent intent are not CMT), overruling Matter of M, 9 I. & N. Dec. 743 (BIA 1962). 

 

But see Matter of Delagadillo, 15 I. & N. Dec. 395 (BIA 1975) (Mexican conviction under Article 367 of the Code of Social Defense of the State of Chihuahua, fraud in obtaining property, held not to be a crime involving moral turpitude, since it could encompass retrieving your own property by fraud.  The record of conviction showed the defendant fabricated a property transfer in an unsuccessful attempt to reduce his wife’s potential settlement in a divorce action, which the court held would generally have been only civilly actionable in the United States, and therefore did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Fraud – Attempted fraud.

 

Matter of B, 1 I. & N. Dec. 47 (BIA, AG 1941) (although attempted fraud in violation of § 263 of the Criminal Code of the German Reich, as amended, involves moral turpitude, and although evidence to show the circumstances under which the crime was committed may not be considered when the noncitizen has been convicted, exclusion under § 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 will not be predicated on the conviction when the record reflects that the noncitizen was convicted primarily because of political considerations, viz, that he was Jewish).

 

Fraud – Criminal fraud.

 

White v. INS, 92 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1996) (Table) (Canadian conviction of criminal fraud, where jury found defendant did “by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud [the owners] of real property . . . , contrary to the Criminal Code” constituted a crime of moral turpitude).

 

Fraud – Check fraud.

 

Matter of B, 4 I. & N. Dec. 297 (BIA 1951) (conviction of an offense under § 10-2105 of the Indiana statutes (entitled “Fraudulent Checks”) involves moral turpitude, since intent to defraud is an element).

 

Fraud – Falsification of commercial documents.

 

Matter of A, 4 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 1951) (conviction in the Philippine Islands in 1915 for falsification of a commercial document, in violation of Articles 301 and 300 of the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands of 1911, does not require a criminal intent of such nature as to warrant a finding that a conviction thereunder is for a crime involving moral turpitude, since a false entry is all that is necessary to constitute the offense).

Fraud – Fraudulent destruction of own property.

 

Matter of Marino, 15 I. & N. Dec. 284 (BIA 1975) (Italian conviction of fraudulent destruction of defendant’s own property under Article 642 of the Italian Penal Code was crime involving moral turpitude), vacated by Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1976).

 

Fraud – Liquor Stamp.

 

Matter of G, 7 I. & N. Dec. 114 (BIA 1956) (conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 2803(g), liquor stamp fraud or possession of stamps, is not conviction for crime involving moral turpitude where indictment does not charge intent to defraud).

 

Fraud – Securities fraud.

 

Matter of McNaughton, 16 I. & N. Dec. 569 (BIA 1978) (conviction for conspiring to affect the public market in securities with intent to defraud in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 338(2), covering substantially similar conduct to that made criminal in the United States by the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), is a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Acosta, 14 I. & N. Dec. 338 (BIA 1973) (conviction of transportation of a forged and altered security in foreign commerce in violation of the third paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 involved moral turpitude);

Matter of Fernandez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 24 (BIA 1972) (transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 is a CMT);

Matter of Lethbridge, 11 I. & N. Dec. 444, 445 (BIA 1965) (conviction under that portion of 18 U.S.C. § 474 which makes it a crime to possess securities made to look like United States securities intending to sell and use them, is not a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude: “Language in the indictment charging knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the securities is not found in 18 U.S.C. § 474 and would therefore appear to be surplusage”).

 

Fraud – Student loan.

 

Izedonmwen v. INS, 37 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 1994) (conviction of obtaining Pell grants by fraud, in violation of 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);

Kabongo v. INS, 837 F.2d 753, 758 n.8 (6th Cir. 1988), cert. den., 488 U.S. 982, 109 S.Ct. 533, 102 L.Ed.2d 564 (1988) (respondent conceded conviction for obtaining a student loan by fraud under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) involved moral turpitude).

 

Credit Card Fraud.

 

Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2001) (Alabama offenses of fraudulent use of credit cards, and credit card forgery, under Alabama’s State Criminal Code § 13A-9-14, were crimes of moral turpitude);

Matter of Chouinard, 11 I. & N. Dec. 839 (BIA 1966) (conviction of the offense of “illegal use of a credit card,” as defined by § 28.416(1), Michigan Statutes Annotated, is a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude since an intent to defraud may be implied notwithstanding the fact that the statute makes no specific reference to such intent).

 

Fraud – Unemployment fraud.

 

Matter of DG, 6 I. & N. Dec. 488 (BIA 1955) (conviction for violation of § 56-1016 of the Arizona Employment Security Act of 1941 (false statement or concealment to obtain benefits under any employment security law) is a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of LT, 5 I. & N. Dec. 705 (BIA 1954) (conviction of violating California Unemployment Insurance Code § 101(a) is a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, since the offense requires an intent to defraud);

Matter of D, 2 I. & N. Dec. 836 (BIA 1947) (Canadian conviction of obtaining money under false pretenses in violation of Canada Unemployment Insurance Act of 1945 § 67 involves moral turpitude since an intent to defraud is an essential element of the offense).

 

Bank Fraud – Embezzlement.

 

United States v. Del Mundo, 97 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1996) (Table), cert. den., 519 U.S. 1134, 117 S.Ct. 1000, 136 L.Ed.2d 879 (1997) (embezzlement, under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 205.300(1), constitutes a crime of moral turpitude, even though one portion of the divisible statute, of which the defendant was convicted, did not require a specific intent to defraud, since by its nature it required a base violation of trust);

Delgado-Chavez v. INS, 765 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1985) (embezzlement is a crime of moral turpitude, since intent to defraud is an essential element), citing McNaughton v. INS, 612 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1980), disagreed with by United States v. Ali, 749 F.Supp. 741 (W.D.Va. 1990);

Matter of Batten, 11 I. & N. Dec. 271 (BIA 1965) (conviction of bank embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, constitutes a CMT since element of intent to defraud is required for conviction);

Matter of Adamo, 10 I. & N. Dec. 593 (BIA 1964) (conviction of “aggravated embezzlement” under Article 646 and Article 61, No. 11, of the Italian Penal Code, is a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

Bank Fraud – Misapplication of Bank Funds.

 

Matter of Robinson, 16 I. & N. Dec. 762 (BIA 1979) (willful misapplication of funds of a savings and loan association in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 includes the element of intent to defraud and therefore involves moral turpitude despite omission of the element of intent to defraud from the statute), overruled in part by Matter of Ozkok, 19 I. & N. Dec 546 (BIA 1988).

 

Fraud against the Government.  Convictions of fraud committed against the government have been held to be CMT.   See Fraud against the government, § 9.37, supra.

 

Impersonation.

 

Matter of B, 6 I. & N. Dec. 702 (BIA 1955) (conviction of the second offense defined in the divisible statute of 18 U.S.C. § 912 [“in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value”] necessarily involves an element of fraud, and therefore the crime involves moral turpitude);

Matter of P, 3 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 1947) (conviction of conspiracy in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 573 to commit the crime of false pretenses with intent to defraud in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 405 involves moral turpitude).

 

Depositing slug in coin box.

 

Matter of G, 2 I. & N. Dec. 235 (BIA 1945) (conviction of depositing a metal disc in a coin box, in violation of New York Penal Law § 1293(c) (1935), is not one which involves moral turpitude, since criminal intent is not an element of the crime), overruling Matter of B, 56019/839 (Mar. 26, 1941).

See also Matter of M, 7 I. & N. Dec. 147 (BIA 1956) (failing to decide whether conviction of “possessing slugs” (under New York Penal Law § 1293(d)) is considered to be a crime involving moral turpitude, since respondent would have qualified for Petty Offense Exception even if the offense were CMT).

 

            False pretences has been found to involve moral turpitude.[109]

[108] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1 states: “Most crimes committed against property which involve moral turpitude include the necessary element of fraud.  The act of fraud involves moral turpitude whether it is aimed against individuals or government.  Fraud generally involves: (1) Making false representation; (2) Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator; (3) Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded; (4) An intent to defraud; and (5) the actual act of committing fraud.”

[109] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(6).

Eleventh Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " UTTERING A FORGED INSTRUMENT
Walker v. U.S. Atty. Gen., ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 1782677 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (Florida conviction of uttering a forged instrument, under Fla. Stat. 831.02, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i): Because uttering a forged instrument involves deceit, we hold that it is a crime of moral turpitude. Uttering a forged instrument is behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent activity.); quoting and following Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213, 1215 (11th Cir. 2002).