United States v. Cook

Background

A truck driver riding on his employer’s truck was indicted for embezzling about $200 from funds tied to an interstate shipment of bananas. His employer was an individual, Tolbert Hawkins, doing business as a common carrier. The district court dismissed the indictment because the statute used the words “firm, association, or corporation,” and the court said that language did not cover employees of an individual owner. The Government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the federal embezzlement statute (Section 660) applies when the employer is an individual operating as a common carrier. The Court examined the statute’s history, earlier provisions that used the phrase “any carrier,” and how the word “firm” is commonly used. The Court found that the 1948 revision changed wording but not substance, and that Congress meant the law to reach employees of any carrier, including individually owned businesses. The Court also said the rule that criminal laws be narrowly read does not override the clear congressional purpose. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, allowing federal prosecution to proceed.

Real world impact

This decision means employees of individually owned common carriers—such as truck drivers working for single-owner operators—can be tried under the federal embezzlement statute. The ruling prevents excluding a substantial segment of small carriers from federal coverage and makes it easier for federal authorities to pursue thefts tied to interstate transportation.