Also known as: false swearing · false oath · perjury
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A petty misdemeanor consisting of making a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation when the statement is required by law to be sworn before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths.
Otto Osman signed an affidavit before a notary falsely claiming ownership of land to secure a bank loan. The notary administered the oath as required by state lending regulations. Otto faces a petty misdemeanor charge for other false swearing because the statement occurred outside any judicial proceeding.
Orla O'Malley executed a sworn declaration before a notary denying any ties to a group whose rules encourage false statements. The declaration was required for a licensing application. Prosecutors charge other false swearing because the oath was administered by a notary rather than during a trial or deposition.
Oriana Oberman signed a false genetic testing report under oath before a notary to establish parentage in a custody filing. The report was required by statute to be notarized. She is prosecuted for other false swearing as the falsity occurred before a notary and not in an official proceeding.
Olivia Owens swore before a notary that she had paid a debt that legally could never have existed under the facts she believed. The notarized statement was required for a contract filing. The charge is other false swearing because the oath took place before a notary and the underlying impossibility prevents escalation to attempt liability.
Orion Orlov signed a false notarized statement about asset values required for a probate filing. His lawyer refused to present the document and disclosed the falsity after failed counseling. Orion is charged with other false swearing because the oath occurred before a notary outside any court proceeding.
Odette Orozco submitted a false sworn statement before a notary regarding corporate ownership details required for a state filing. The statement had the potential to affect regulatory decisions. She faces other false swearing charges because the oath was administered by a notary rather than in a judicial setting.
In the 1980s, respondent engaged in multiple real estate transactions financed by loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, an agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Respondent would purchase rental housing, renovate it, obtain an inflated appraisal, and sell it to a straw buyer for whom respondent would arrange an FHA-insured mortgage loan. Then, as prearranged, respondent would repurchase the property at a small profit to the straw buyer and assume the mortgage loan. Twenty-nine of these ventures went into default. Respondent was charged by federal indictment with multiple counts of making false statements on federal loan documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. Two of these counts charged that respondent had made false statements on HUD/FHA form 92800-5 by knowingly inflating the appraised value of the mortgaged property. The other false-statement counts charged that respondent had made misrepresentations on HUD/FHA form HUD-1, the settlement form used in closing the sales of the properties. Line 303 of this form requires disclosure of the closing costs to be paid or received by the borrower/buyer and the seller. The forms executed by respondent showed that the buyer was to pay some of the closing costs, whereas in fact he, the seller, had arranged to pay all of them. To prove the materiality of these false statements, the Government offered the testimony of several persons charged with administering FHA/HUD programs, who explained why the requested information was important. At the close of the evidence, the United States District Court for the District of Montana instructed the jury. The court stated that the issue of materiality was not submitted to the jury for its decision but was instead a matter for the court. The court further instructed that the statements charged in the indictment were material statements. The jury convicted respondent of the §1001 charges. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed these convictions. On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals stood by its precedent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseOther false swearing is a petty misdemeanor that applies when a false statement under oath occurs before a notary or authorized oath administrator outside an official proceeding. Perjury requires the statement to occur in an official proceeding and carries felony penalties.
Materiality is not required for other false swearing. The offense is complete upon making a false statement under oath before a notary when the oath is legally required, regardless of whether the statement could influence any proceeding.
Other false swearing applies only when the statement is required by law to be sworn before a notary. A purely private contract oath that is not legally mandated does not trigger the offense.
The defendant must make the statement when he does not believe it to be true. This mirrors the knowledge requirement in the perjury provision but results in a lesser grade of offense.
…and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment…