Whoever steals, purloins, or embezzles any property used by the Postal Service, or appropriates any such property to his own or any other than its proper use, or conveys away any such property to the hindrance or detriment of the public service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 313 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 190,35 Stat. 1124).
The phrase “used by” was substituted for “in use by or belonging to” in order to limit the application of the section to property used by the Post Office Department. Theft of public property belonging to governmental departments is covered by section
641 of this title.
A fine of “$1,000” was substituted for “$200,” thus increasing the maximum to conform with other comparable sections. (See section
1705 of this title.)
The smaller penalty for an offense involving property valued at $100 or less was added. (See reviser’s notes under sections
645 of this title.)
1994—Pub. L. 103–322substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” after “service, shall be” and for “fined not more than $500” after “he shall be”.
1970—Pub. L. 91–375substituted “Postal Service” for “Post Office Department”.
Effective Date of 1970 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 91–375effective within 1 year after Aug. 12, 1970, on date established therefor by Board of Governors of United States Postal Service and published by it in Federal Register, see section 15(a) ofPub. L. 91–375, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section
101 of Title
39, Postal Service.
The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.