Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Possession of stolen property is NOT a CMT where guilty knowledge is not required as an essential element of the offense.

Michel v. INS, 206 F.3d 253, 270 (2d Cir. 2000) (opinion of Sotomayor, J.) (New York convictions for possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, under New York Penal Law § 165.40, possession of stolen bus transfers, constituted crimes involving moral turpitude, since knowledge that the property was stolen was required by statute as an essential element);

Matter of K, 2 I. & N. Dec. 90 (BIA 1944) (German conviction which may be based on negligent receipt of stolen property by a person acting in good faith under circumstances which should have led him to make inquiry held not to be CMT).

Possession of stolen property has been held to involve moral turpitude where the statute requires reckless disregard that the property was stolen, instead of actual knowledge. 

Kim v. INS, 24 F.3d 247 (9th Cir. 1994) (Table) (Washington conviction of possession of stolen property, under the Revised Code of Washington, § 9A.56.150, constitutes a crime of moral turpitude, since knowledge property was stolen is an essential element of the offense);

Matter of Gutierrez-Chavez, A22 748 019 (unpubl. BIA Index Dec., Jan. 23, 1992) (same CMT result).

See also Matter of Franklin, 20 I. & N. Dec. 867 (BIA 1994);

Matter of Wojtkow, 18 I. & N. Dec. 111 (BIA 1981) (where criminally reckless conduct amounts to moral turpitude). 

Retaining stolen goods.

Matter of G, 2 I. & N. Dec. 235 (BIA 1945) (conviction of retaining stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 399, was held to involve moral turpitude, where the evidence showed the thief intended permanently to deprive the rightful owner of the goods).