> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# 18 U.S.C. 152, Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-152-case-outcomes/
- Published: 2026-11-03T06:55:50.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-03T06:55:50.000Z
- Description: Federal records list 251 defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 with a most serious charge under 18 U.S.C. 152. Of the 15 who went to trial, 5 were acquitted (33%), and 220 of the 251 (88%) were convicted overall. Prison terms were less common than in many federal offenses: 119 of
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Federal

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) › 18 U.S.C. 152

**In brief:** Federal records list 251 defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 with a most serious charge under 18 U.S.C. 152\. Of the 15 who went to trial, 5 were acquitted (33%), and 220 of the 251 (88%) were convicted overall. Prison terms were less common than in many federal offenses: 119 of the 220 convicted (54%) received one, with a median of 13 months.

Updated November 3, 2026 · Sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission and Federal Judicial Center, fiscal years 2016–2025

This post uses the Federal Judicial Center's records of 251 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. The series also draws on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 659,036 people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. It is part of the [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) series, which builds on [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/). How the numbers were built: [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/).

## Trials and Acquittals Under Section 152

The U.S. Code heads Title 18, section 152 "Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery". Only 15 of the 251 defendants (6%) took their case to trial.

Those 15 trials produced 5 acquittals, or 33%. The way the trial was held matters in this count. Juries decided 12 trials and acquitted in 2 (17%). Judges decided the other 3 as bench trials, and all 3 ended in an acquittal (3 of 3).

These are small numbers. A total of 3 bench trials over 10 fiscal years cannot show how a judge would decide the next case, and the jury count is not much larger.

## Most Cases Ended Without a Trial

Guilty pleas resolved 210 cases (84%). Another 26 (10%) ended in a dismissal.

The Federal Judicial Center counts every defendant whose case ended, so the totals include dismissals and acquittals as well as convictions. A dismissal can include charges the government moved to drop, for instance after a guilty plea in a separate case. It is not the same as a finding of not guilty.

All 251 charges were felonies. None was recorded as a Class A misdemeanor or a petty offense.

## Prison Terms on the Section 152 Charge

Of the 220 defendants convicted by plea or at trial, 119 (54%) received a prison term on this charge. The rest were convicted without a prison term on it.

For those with a term of 1 month or more, the median was 13 months. The median is the middle value of that group only. It does not include convicted defendants who received no prison term.

## Type of Counsel at the End of the Case

The counsel figures below compare groups of cases, not the quality of lawyers. People who retain a lawyer and people who receive an appointed one face different charges and circumstances, and the records note only the type of counsel when the case ended.

Retained private counsel represented 125 defendants (50%) under this section. In that group, 91% pleaded guilty, 4% had the case dismissed, 6 went to trial, and 3 of those 6 were acquitted.

A federal public or community defender represented 75 defendants (30%). Their plea share was 87% and the dismissal share 9%. Of 3 trials, none ended in an acquittal (0 of 3).

A CJA panel attorney, an outside lawyer appointed by the court, represented 43 defendants (17%). This group had a 72% plea share and a 19% dismissal share. Of 4 trials, 2 ended in an acquittal (2 of 4).

The records list 2 self-represented defendants. Both went to trial, and neither was acquitted (0 of 2).

| Type of counsel at the end of the case | Defendants | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| -------------------------------------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| Federal public or community defender   | 75         | 87%            | 9%        | 3      | 0 (0 of 3)         |
| CJA panel attorney                     | 43         | 72%            | 19%       | 4      | 2 (2 of 4)         |
| Private (retained) counsel             | 125        | 91%            | 4%        | 6      | 3 (3 of 6)         |
| Self-represented                       | 2          | 0 of 2         | 0 of 2    | 2      | 0 (0 of 2)         |

## Year-by-Year Counts

The most cases ended in fiscal year 2017, with 44, followed by 42 in fiscal year 2016\. The fewest ended in fiscal year 2023, with 15.

The dismissal share moved from year to year. It was 25% in fiscal year 2019 and 0% in fiscal years 2021 and 2024\. With yearly counts this small, a few cases can change these shares a great deal, so the table should not be read as a trend.

Federal fiscal years begin on October 1, so each one spans parts of 2 calendar years.

| Fiscal year | Cases ended | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| ----------- | ----------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| 2016        | 42          | 86%            | 7%        | 3      | 2 (2 of 3)         |
| 2017        | 44          | 91%            | 5%        | 2      | 0 (0 of 2)         |
| 2018        | 20          | 75%            | 15%       | 2      | 0 (0 of 2)         |
| 2019        | 32          | 69%            | 25%       | 2      | 1 (1 of 2)         |
| 2020        | 23          | 91%            | 9%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2021        | 16          | 94%            | 0%        | 1      | 0 (0 of 1)         |
| 2022        | 24          | 71%            | 17%       | 3      | 1 (1 of 3)         |
| 2023        | 15          | 87%            | 7%        | 1      | 1 (1 of 1)         |
| 2024        | 19          | 100%           | 0%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2025        | 16          | 75%            | 19%       | 1      | 0 (0 of 1)         |

## What the Counts Leave Out

The approved crosswalk has no close court-martial counterpart for section 152\. This post therefore reports federal numbers only.

Each defendant is counted by the most serious charge at the end of the case, which may differ from the charge filed at the start. The records give no reasons for pleas, dismissals, or verdicts, and they do not show the facts of any case.

### How We Counted

Every federal defendant whose case ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 and whose most serious charge at the end of the case (TTITLE1) was under 18 U.S.C. 152, any subsection (251), Federal Judicial Center, counted as in the federal courts' Table D-4\. Type of counsel is TCOUNSEL; labels from the FJC criminal codebook. Section heading from the U.S. Code as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (release point 119-136).

Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30\. No person, judge, or lawyer is identified in any of these records.

### What to Keep in Mind

**Who is in each set of numbers.** The federal sentencing numbers come from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. They count only people who were convicted and sentenced in federal district court. People whose cases were dismissed or who were acquitted are not in them. The military numbers come from court-martial results, which include acquittals. To compare acquittal or dismissal rates, the federal side uses a different source: the Federal Judicial Center's case data, which counts every defendant whose case ended.

**How "plea" and "trial" are counted.** In the federal sentencing numbers, "trial" means the person was convicted after a trial, including people who pleaded guilty to some counts and went to trial on others. People acquitted at trial are not in these numbers at all (see "Who is in each set of numbers"). In the federal case data, the trial rate counts both convictions and acquittals at trial among all defendants whose cases ended, including dismissed cases. Military numbers count contested cases that reached a verdict. These denominators are not the same, and each post states the one it uses.

**Time periods.** Federal numbers are by federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), based on the sentencing date. The military numbers are by trial date. Neither source has the date of the offense, so a change in law shows up in either data set gradually.

**Type of counsel describes groups of cases, not lawyers.** The Federal Judicial Center records the type of counsel at the end of the case. Defendants who hire a lawyer differ from defendants who receive an appointed lawyer in their charges, criminal history, and circumstances, and some defendants change lawyers during a case. Differences in outcomes by type of counsel therefore cannot be credited to the type of lawyer.

## Related Analysis

- [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/) (the background article)
- [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) (all federal posts)
- [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/) (sources and method)
- [18 U.S.C. 115, Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-115-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 117, Domestic assault by an habitual offender: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-117-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 157, Bankruptcy fraud: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-157-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 201, Bribery of public officials and witnesses: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-201-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [Appointed vs. Retained Lawyers in Federal Criminal Cases: How Cases Ended, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-appointed-vs-retained-counsel-outcomes/)
- [Are Courts-Martial More Likely to End in Acquittal Than Federal Trials?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-trial-acquittal-rates-vs-courts-martial/)
- [U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles](https://www.ussc.gov/research/datafiles/commission-datafiles?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)
- [Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants)](https://www.fjc.gov/research/idb?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)

**About the author.** Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts *Where All The Bodies Are Buried* and runs the [Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.