Protection of Government PropertyElement --
Proof of criminal intent is part of every prosecution under 18
§ 641. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246
However, as noted, there is no single intent requirement for the offenses
included under 18 U.S.C. § 641.|
There are several recurring common questions of intent which arise
18 U.S.C. § 641 prosecutions. The first question involves whether
misappropriation of government property falls within the sanctions of this
section. The answer to this question turns on the nature of the offense
Section 641 incorporates several distinct offenses. One of these offenses,
larceny, requires an intent to permanently deprive another of his property.
See Ailsworth v. United States, 448 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir.
In contrast several other offenses encompassed by this section, such as
embezzlement and knowing conversion of property, simply require temporary
misappropriation of property. See Morissette v. United
U.S. at 246 (knowing conversion); United States v. Powell, 294 F.
1353 (E.D.Va.), aff'd, 413 F.2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1968) (embezzlement).
Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 641 can reach temporary misappropriation of
property under either an embezzlement or knowing conversion theory of
A second recurring question involves whether the intent requirement
18 U.S.C. § 641 demands that a defendant know that the property belongs
the United States. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the
Circuit at one time held that knowledge of government ownership was an
of this offense; see Findley v. United States, 362 F.2d
(10th Cir. 1966), it has since abandoned this position. See
States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934, 938 (10th Cir. 1977) (en banc),
cert. denied, 435 U.S. 927 (1978). Other Circuits have adopted this
and held that a defendant need not know that it is government property which
is taking. See, e.g., United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d
(3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1971);
Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.), cert.
U.S. 957 (1970); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.
[cited in USAM 9-66.200]