Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Aaron Scolnick v. United States

Aaron Scolnick v. United States, 331 F.2d 598 (1st Cir. 1964)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1964-05-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The facts in this case are fully set forth in the opinion below, United States v. Scolnick, D.Mass., 1963, 219 F.Supp. 408. We find no merit in the appeal. The endorsement and deposit for collection of a government check known to be issued by mistake in payment of an obligation already, in fact, satisfied is the presentation •of a false claim within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Aaron Scolnick v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
SCOLNICK v. UNITED STATES,331 F.2d 598(1st Cir. 1964)
Aaron SCOLNICK, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America,
Plaintiff, Appellee.
No. 6217.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard March 4, 1964.
Decided May 7, 1964.
Page 599
Dean E. Nicholson, Haverhill, Mass., with whom Espovich Nicholson, Haverhill, Mass., was on the brief, for appellant.

Sherman L. Cohn, Atty. Dept. of Justice, with whom John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Harvey L. Zuckman, Atty. Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN, and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The facts in this case are fully set forth in the opinion below, United States v. Scolnick, D.Mass., 1963,219 F. Supp. 408. We find no merit in the appeal. The endorsement and deposit for collection of a government check known to be issued by mistake in payment of an obligation already, in fact, satisfied is the presentation of a false claim within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231. Cf. Dimmick v. United States, 9 Cir., 1902,116 F. 825, cert. den.189 U.S. 509,23 S.Ct. 850,47 L.Ed. 923. The court was not obliged to accept the defendant's protestations of innocence. Not only was he the principal officer and stockholder of the payee corporation, but the proceeds of the checks were disbursed by him in satisfaction of a corporate debt owed to his father, and for wage obligations the nonpayment of which might have resulted in defendant's incarceration, both reasons to suppose that he had been aware of the accounts receivable picture. Nor were direct personal benefits to the defendant required. Murray Sorenson, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1953,207 F.2d 119, 42 A.L.R.2d 628.

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.Page 68