B-136570, AUG. 4, 1958

B-136570: Aug 4, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

YOUR ATTORNEY MAINTAINS THAT YOU ARE NOT INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES. YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN DAYS WHEN YOU WORKED FOR AND WERE PAID BY T. THAT WAS SUSPENDED AND YOU WERE PLACED ON 2 YEARS' PROBATION UPON CONDITION THAT YOU REPAY $422. THAT AMOUNT WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF YOUR ATTORNEY THAT WHEN THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF THE $422 THERE WAS A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT DUE AND ASSESSABLE AGAINST YOU. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF.

B-136570, AUG. 4, 1958

TO MR. AARON WRIGHT, ATTORNEY AT LAW:

IN LETTER DATED JUNE 3, 1958, WRITTEN IN YOUR BEHALF, YOUR ATTORNEY MAINTAINS THAT YOU ARE NOT INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES. THE AMOUNT NOW DUE, $109.50, REPRESENTS THE BALANCE DUE OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH AROSE UNDER SECTION 4 (A-1) (I) OF THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. 354 (A) (I). YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN DAYS WHEN YOU WORKED FOR AND WERE PAID BY T. F. SCHOLES, INC., 632 WASHINGTON STREET, READING, PENNSYLVANIA. YOUR PROSECUTION FOR FRAUD UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT RESULTED IN A SENTENCE OF 3 MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT; THAT WAS SUSPENDED AND YOU WERE PLACED ON 2 YEARS' PROBATION UPON CONDITION THAT YOU REPAY $422. THAT AMOUNT WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD. THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE BALANCE OF $277.50, WHICH REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE DISQUALIFYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 (A-1) (I). IT IS THE CONTENTION OF YOUR ATTORNEY THAT WHEN THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF THE $422 THERE WAS A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT DUE AND ASSESSABLE AGAINST YOU.

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF, AND DOES NOT SATISFY, CIVIL LIABILITY. SEE US EX REL MARCUS V. HESS, 317 U.S. 537, 548, AND HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ACTION OF THE COURT IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION DID NOT EFFECT A DISCHARGE OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS.