## Facts

- Federal regulations issued under the 1935 “Hot Oil” Act created Federal Tender Boards and required verified reports concerning petroleum production and receipt to control interstate shipment of “contraband oil.”
- Gilliland and others involved in Texas oil operations were charged with causing false verified reports to be made and used in submissions to Federal Tender Board No. 1 in Kilgore, Texas.
- Defendants were indicted on 11 counts: one conspiracy count and 10 substantive counts alleging violations of § 35 of the Criminal Code (then 18 U.S.C. § 80), as amended in 1934, for knowingly and willfully making or using false statements or documents in matters within federal agency jurisdiction.
- The district court sustained a demurrer to the 10 substantive counts on the view that § 35, as amended, did not reach the charged conduct, but allowed the conspiracy count to stand.
- The United States took a direct appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, limiting review to construction of the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether § 35’s prohibition on false statements “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States” is limited to cases involving pecuniary or property loss to the United States.
2. Whether verified petroleum production and receipt reports filed with a Federal Tender Board under “Hot Oil” Act regulations fall within § 35.
3. Whether § 35 is unconstitutionally indefinite as applied to false tender-board reports.
4. Whether the “Hot Oil” Act’s specific penalty scheme displaced or narrowed § 35 as applied to false documents used in administering the Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the 10 substantive counts.
- The Court held § 35 is not confined to falsehoods causing or risking monetary or property loss to the United States.
- The Court held § 35 reaches verified reports falsely stating petroleum production or receipts that were filed with a Federal Tender Board under federal regulations implementing the “Hot Oil” Act.
- The Court rejected use of ejusdem generis to narrow the statute’s broad “matter within the jurisdiction” language.
- The Court held § 35, as applied, is not invalid for indefiniteness.
- The Court held the “Hot Oil” Act did not supplant § 35 with respect to false affidavits and related documents used to administer the federal program, notwithstanding differing maximum penalties.

## Legal Principles

- Federal false-statement prohibitions covering matters “within the jurisdiction” of a federal department or agency protect governmental functions from deception and are not limited to safeguarding federal funds or property.
- “Within the jurisdiction” includes administrative and regulatory matters committed to federal departments, agencies, and their authorized instrumentalities, including enforcement bodies created by federal regulations under statutory authority.
- Canons of construction such as ejusdem generis do not justify narrowing alternative statutory provisions when text and legislative purpose indicate an intended expansion of coverage.
- A criminal statute proscribing knowing and willful false statements in documents used in matters within federal agency jurisdiction provides sufficient notice when applied to required, verified regulatory filings.
- A later statute with its own penalties does not impliedly repeal or displace a generally applicable false-statements statute absent clear incompatibility; a higher maximum penalty in the general statute does not, by itself, create displacement.

## Conclusion

The Court construed the federal false-statements statute broadly to reach knowingly false verified reports submitted to federal administrators under the “Hot Oil” enforcement program, rejected vagueness and displacement arguments, and reinstated the substantive counts by reversing the dismissal.


United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 (1941)