18 U.S.C. 1001 prohibits specified knowing and willful material falsehoods in matters within federal jurisdiction. A statement need not be under oath to create exposure. A mistake, ambiguity, or immaterial inaccuracy requires a different analysis from an intentional material lie. [1]
Elements and penalties
The ordinary fine ceiling for an individual is $250,000; the five- and eight-year provisions concern imprisonment. [2] The usual maximum is five years; specified terrorism, sexual-offense, and trafficking-related matters can carry eight years. The statute includes a limited judicial-submission exception for parties and counsel, and limits its application to legislative matters. Concealment cases also require attention to the duty to disclose. [1]
A party’s submission to a judge and an interview with an executive-branch investigator are not the same setting for the judicial-proceeding exception. Legislative jurisdiction is also limited by the section’s administrative-matter and authorized-investigation provisions. A concealment theory should identify the duty to disclose rather than assume silence is always a false statement. The exact statement, materiality, and required knowledge remain separate proof questions. [1]
What to examine in the actual case
- Preserve the exact question and answer, including qualifications and attachments.
- Identify the federal matter and the reason the statement was allegedly material.
- Check the statutory judicial or legislative limitations against the actual recipient and proceeding.
Practical example
A wrong date on a form does not establish every element. Investigators must assess whether it was knowingly false, material to the matter, and within federal jurisdiction.
For related situations, see false loan statements under Section 1014 and criminal false claims against the government.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.