Crimes of Moral Turpitude

(B)

Fraud Against the Government.  Fraud against the government is not limited to pecuniary fraud, since an intent to undermine or subvert governmental authority is also considered to be an intent to defraud the government.  Therefore, where intent to defraud the government by subverting its authority is a necessary element of an offense, the offense is generally held to be a crime involving moral turpitude.[88]  The rule has been extended to include other crimes as well, e.g., counterfeiting coins.[89]  See also § § 9.37, 9.66-9.68, infra.

            Willfully attempting to evade payment of income tax by filing false and fraudulent returns was held to be a crime involving moral turpitude.  Stating that income tax evasion or attempted evasion could not be “willful” without a specific intent to defraud, the court said that a noncitizen “permitted to enter this country and to enjoy the blessings of freedom under the Constitution and laws of the United States” who willfully evades or attempts to evade the payment of his fair share of the taxes needed to support our government is surely engaged in conduct involving moral turpitude.[3]

[90] See, e.g., Hyder v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2007) (federal conviction for misuse of a social security number [applying for drivers license] obtained by fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A), is a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes, since the statute requires an “intent to deceive”), disagreeing with Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2000); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951).  The most obvious crime to illustrate this rule is perjury.  E.g., United States ex rel. Karpay v. Uhl, 70 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1934), cert. den., 293 U.S. 573 (1934); United States ex rel. Cumberbatch v. Shaughnessy, 117 F.Supp. 152 (D.N.Y. 1953); United States ex rel. Carella v. Karnuth, 2 F.Supp. 998 (D.N.Y. 1933).

[88] Bisaillon v. Hogan, 257 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. den. sub nom. Bisaillon v. Sureck, 358 U.S. 872 (1958) (willfully and knowingly making a false statement in a passport application with intent to obtain the issuance of a passport contrary to law constituted a fraud on the United States, although not measurable in dollars and cents, being in that regard akin to perjury); United States ex rel. Giglio v. Neelly, 208 F.2d 337 (7th Cir. 1953) (the absence of fraudulent intent as an essential element of counterfeiting coins indicated that Congress did not intend to impute moral turpitude in the offense).

[89] Burr v. INS, 350 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 383 U.S. 915 (1966) (relatively minor California misdemeanor conviction of issuing an insufficient funds check with intent to cheat and defraud as an essential element held to constitute a crime involving moral turpitude); Costello v. INS, 311 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d on other grounds, 376 U.S. 120 (1964); Rukavina v. INS, 303 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1962) (Illinois conviction of obtaining money by means of a confidence game held to be a crime involving a “fraudulent scheme,” necessarily involving cheating or swindling, and therefore constituted a CMT); Tseung Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 355 U.S. 892 (1957) (“willful” income tax evasion statute required the trier of fact to find evil motive or bad purpose plus a specific intent to defraud the government, which intent to defraud, said the court, supplied the necessary element sufficient to make a violation of this section a crime involving moral turpitude); United States ex rel. Millard v. Tuttle, 46 F.2d 342 (D.La. 1930) (encumbering mortgaged property with intent to defraud held CMT); Chanan Din Khan v. Barber, 147 F.Supp. 771 (D.Cal. 1957), aff’d, 253 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. den., 357 U.S. 920 (1958) (willful income tax evasion held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, since crimes in which fraud is an ingredient have always been regarded as involving moral turpitude, since “wilfulness” has been judicially defined as meaning “bad faith,” “bad purpose,” and “evil motive,” and the government must prove that the evading taxpayer had a specific intent to evade taxation, amounting to an intent to defraud the United States).