National Stolen Property Act—Prosecution Policy

Prosecutions under the first two paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2315 should be governed by the same factors that determine whether other non-governmental thefts or frauds (e.g., mail frauds or wire frauds) should be prosecuted Federally. See

JM 9-43.000

and

9-43.300

. The $5,000 jurisdictional threshold figure, originally adopted in 1934, was selected to limit Federal involvement to significant cases. If the $5,000 figure had been indexed for inflation the comparable value in 1996 would be approximately $60,000. These figures are cited in order to provide a historical perspective for these sections. Of course, violations involving less than $60,000 should be prosecuted Federally where the situation warrants.

The monetary figures are more important when considering prosecution under the "falsely made, forged, altered and counterfeit" securities provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 which do not require any specific monetary amount to invoke Federal jurisdiction. However, prosecutive judgments under all provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 should be balanced. Although the "forgery" provisions permit Federal jurisdiction for one forged security, prosecutive discretion should be exercised in favor of those instances where there is some compelling reason to bring the matter in Federal courts. Hence, with regard to forged, falsely made, altered, or counterfeited securities under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 or § 2315, the Department's position is that such offenses are primarily within the purview of State law and should be prosecuted by State authorities where feasible, even though the requisites of Federal jurisdiction under the Act are present

elling reason to bring the matter in Federal courts. Hence, with regard to forged, falsely made, altered, or counterfeited securities under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 or § 2315, the Department's position is that such offenses are primarily within the purview of State law and should be prosecuted by State authorities where feasible, even though the requisites of Federal jurisdiction under the Act are present. However, Federal prosecution is recommended where particularly appropriate, as where the broad scope of defendant's activities (e.g., interstate "paper hangers") suggests a need for Federal investigative facilities or appears to render inadequate the punishment brought in conjunction with other Federal charges, or where successful State prosecution appears unlikely or the State fails or refuses to entertain prosecution.

[cited in

JM 9-61.510

]