No, I understand the law completely. If you receive it, and keep it (conversion for use or gain), and you know it is stolen then you have met the three elements of this statute. The notification from NCIS is notice that said item is the property of the United States. Failure to return said item to the United States makes one guilty of the above statute.
Knowing conversion completes the picture of 18 U.S.C. § 641 by prohibiting all other deliberate wrongful uses of government property. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 271-72 (1952), for a description of this broad provision.
Section 641 of Title 18 also prohibits receipt of stolen government property. There are five elements to the offense: the defendant must receive, conceal or retain; stolen property; belonging to the United States; knowing that the property has been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted; and with the intent to convert that property to his own use or gain. See United States v. Fench, 470 F.2d 1234 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 909 (1972); Teel v. United States, 407 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1969).
At the outset, it should be noted that the conduct proscribed by this section is set forth in the disjunctive. Thus, a defendant violates the law when he either "receives, " “conceals” or “retains” stolen property. None of these words are terms of art and they should be given their normal construction.
The intent requirement of this section presents more serious problems. Prosecutions for receiving stolen property require proof of a compound state of mind. First, the defendant must know that the property he has received, concealed or retained is stolen. Note, however, that the defendant need not know that the property was stolen from the United States. See Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957 (1970). Ownership of the property by the United States is simply a jurisdictional requirement and is not relevant to the criminal intent needed to violate the law.
The defendant must also act with the intent to convert the property to his own use. Thus, this offense is a specific intent crime. Proof of this intent, however, does not require evidence showing that the defendant actually derived some benefit from the property. This element is satisfied merely by showing that the defendant intended to convert some property to his personal gain. See United States v. Hinds, 662 F.2d 362, 369 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982).
The property encompassed by 18 U.S.C. § 641 is also defined in broad terms. Section 641 protects “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof.”
Generally, jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 641 turns on the nature of the government’s interest in the property which has been stolen. If that interest is sufficient, federal jurisdiction attaches; if it is not sufficient, the prosecution must be deferred to the state or local authorities. The question of whether the United States has sufficient interest in some property to trigger jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 641 arises in a wide variety of factual contexts. Some of the most common situations involving this issue are described below.
Actual title in the United States is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, regardless of whether title coincides with physical possession. Determining when the United States holds title to some property in the possession of a third party frequently turns on the facts of the individual case. The following situations have presented the most difficulty in the past.