5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 2.15B

18 U.S.C. § 371 (SECOND CLAUSE)

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, makes it a crime for two or more persons to

conspire to defraud the United States or any of its agencies in any manner or for any purpose.

The defendant is charged with conspiring to defraud the United States by ________

(describe means, e.g., impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of the Internal

Revenue Service in the ascertainment, assessment or collection of income taxes due).

The word “defraud” here is not limited to its ordinary meaning of cheating the government

out of money or property; it also includes impairing, obstructing, defeating, or interfering with the

lawful function of the government or one of its agencies by dishonest means.

A “conspiracy” is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to

accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of “partnership in crime,” in which each member

becomes the agent of every other member.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the

government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant and at least one other person made an agreement to defraud the

government or one of its agencies by____________ (describe), as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the defendant knew that the purpose of the agreement was to defraud the

government and joined in it willfully, that is, with the intent to defraud; and

Third: That at least one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy

knowingly committed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, in order to

accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

The overt act need not be of a criminal nature so long as it is done in furtherance of the

conspiracy.

One may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all the details of the unlawful

scheme or the identities of all the other alleged conspirators. If a defendant understands the

unlawful nature of a plan or scheme and knowingly and intentionally joins in that plan or scheme

on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him [her] for conspiracy even though the defendant

had not participated before and even though the defendant played only a minor part.

The government does not need to prove that the alleged conspirators entered into any

formal agreement, or that they directly stated between themselves all the details of the scheme.

Likewise, the government does not need to prove that all of the details of the scheme alleged in

the indictment were actually agreed upon or carried out. Nor must it prove that all of the persons

137

alleged to have been members of the conspiracy were such, or that the alleged conspirators actually

succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful objectives.

Mere presence at the scene of an event, even with knowledge that a crime is being

committed, or the mere fact that certain persons may have assembled together and discussed

common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of the existence of a conspiracy.

Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way that

advances some purpose of a conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator.