context: But established precedents, not disputed by Oakar, make it clear that SS 1001 embraces false statements made to anybody on earth if the maker "knew or should have known that the information was to be submitted to a government agency." And liability has been based on false statements to state agencies.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: false statement to state labor department in connection with federally funded program
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Davis, 8 F.3d 923 (2d Cir.1993) (false statements submitted by federal prisoner to authorities of state prison in which he was held under contract); United States v. Wright, 988 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir.1993) (false statements to a state environmental agency with primary enforcement responsibility for federal water quality standards); United States v. Suggs, 755 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir.1985) (false statement to state labor department in connection with federally funded program); but cf. United States v. Facchini, 874 F.2d 638, 642-43 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc) (finding no liability for false statements in support of unemployment claims, made to state agency whose administrative costs were federally supported, where federal monitor lacked power to modify payments on account of state’s excess payments).
citation_b.signal: but cf.
citation_b.identifier: 874 F.2d 638, 642-43
citation_b.parenthetical: finding no liability for false statements in support of unemployment claims, made to state agency whose administrative costs were federally supported, where federal monitor lacked power to modify payments on account of state's excess payments
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Davis, 8 F.3d 923 (2d Cir.1993) (false statements submitted by federal prisoner to authorities of state prison in which he was held under contract); United States v. Wright, 988 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir.1993) (false statements to a state environmental agency with primary enforcement responsibility for federal water quality standards); United States v. Suggs, 755 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir.1985) (false statement to state labor department in connection with federally funded program); but cf. United States v. Facchini, 874 F.2d 638, 642-43 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc) (finding no liability for false statements in support of unemployment claims, made to state agency whose administrative costs were federally supported, where federal monitor lacked power to modify payments on account of state’s excess payments).