UCO Oil Co. v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• holding: “We see no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order.”
• characterizing coverage of section 1001 as follows: "The law of fraud knows no difference between express misrepresentation on the one hand and implied misrepresentation or concealment on the other."
• extraterritorial application of statute is justified by nationality and objective territorial principles and is constitutional
• discussion of use of photographic or electronic presentation of testimony compared to stenographic transcript and live testimony
• videotaped depositions of two unindicted co-conspirators unavailable to testify because they were incarcerated in Japan were admissible
• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 "... is directed at a single evil, i.e. the `perversion' of `the authorized functions of governmental departments and agencies ... which might result from the deceptive practices described.'"