Skip to main content

§ 152(3)

United States v. Stoller

Ruling
Guilty plea to bankruptcy fraud charges upheld on appeal.
Issue(s)
Should debtor’s guilty plea to bankruptcy fraud be vacated?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of United States v. Stoller Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 27, 2016 , LexisNexis #0716-087

United Sates v. Holthaus

Ruling
Restitution and prison sentence upheld for debtor's fraudulent failure to schedule $8,000 in assets and $36,000 inheritance.
Procedural posture

Defendant sought review of a sentence imposed by the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa after defendant pled guilty to knowingly and fraudulently making a false declaration or statement in connection with his bankruptcy petition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3). The sentence included prison time and a mandatory restitution of $8,093, pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of United Sates v. Holthaus Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
opinion summary, case decided on May 25, 2007 , LexisNexis #0607-104

United States v. Naegele

Ruling
False sworn statements by debtor's attorney that were never filed with the court were not grounds for perjury charge.
Procedural posture

Defendant, an attorney licensed to practice law in California and the District of Columbia, moved to dismiss Count 7 of an indictment, which charged him with making false declarations or statements under penalty of perjury with respect to documents he filed in a chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of United States v. Naegele Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on April 18, 2007 , LexisNexis #0607-103