## Facts

- Sydney A. Chaplin and Dorothy Chaplin were indicted in the District of Columbia for obtaining money from Violette McMullen by false pretenses.
- The indictment alleged they represented they were engaged in the wine and liquor business in Alexandria, Virginia, and that if McMullen advanced money, they would buy liquor stamps and return the money advanced.
- The indictment’s falsity allegation focused on the defendants’ asserted intent not to (1) purchase liquor stamps and (2) return the advanced funds.
- At trial, the government did not prove that the statement that the defendants were engaged in the liquor business was false; the evidence indicated it was true.
- The prosecution’s case therefore depended on showing that, when the money was obtained, the defendants did not intend to perform the promised future acts.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment charges obtaining money by false pretenses when the only representation of an existing fact is not alleged or proven false, and the alleged falsity rests on promises of future conduct.
2. Whether an unfulfilled promise, coupled with an alleged present intent not to perform, can satisfy the “false pretense” element under the District of Columbia false pretenses statute absent a false statement of past or existing fact.

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction.
- The court held the indictment was legally insufficient because it did not allege a false representation of an existing or past fact.
- The court held the government’s proof was insufficient because it did not establish falsity as to any present or past fact; the only such representation (business engagement) was true.
- The court rejected the theory that false pretenses may rest solely on promises of future conduct, even when made without intent to perform.

## Legal Principles

- Under the District of Columbia false pretenses statute, the required “false pretense” must be a misrepresentation of an existing or past fact.
- A promise or statement of future intention, standing alone, does not constitute a false pretense for criminal liability, even if the promisor allegedly intended not to perform when the promise was made.
- An indictment and conviction for false pretenses fail where the prosecution does not plead and prove falsity as to a representation of present or past fact.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Chaplin’s conviction because the prosecution proceeded on unkept promises of future performance rather than a proven false representation of an existing or past fact, which the statute requires for obtaining money by false pretenses.


Chaplin v. United States, 157 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1946)