Abouammo v. United States · ¶18

Our “seminal” decision in United States v. Johnson, 323 U. S. 273 (1944), was based on much the same principles. 4 W. LaFave, Criminal Procedure §16.2(b) (4th ed. 2025, Supp.). We there considered the place in which a prosecution brought under the Federal Denture Act should be tried. That now-defunct statute barred a person from “us[ing] the mails” “for the purpose of sending . . . into” a State any denture made by a non-dentist. 323 U. S., at 274. Venue, the Court held, was proper only where the product was put in the mail (Illinois), not where it was later received and used (Delaware). That was so, we explained, because under the Act “the crime of the sender is complete” when he drops the denture into the mailbox. Id., at 277. It was immaterial that the illegal denture traveled on to Delaware—as it is that Abouammo’s false invoice reached California. Likewise, it was immaterial that…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.