8 ms·

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie). Obviously that's not true under a regime of mass surveillance, which is one of the many reasons I think mass surveillance is a bad idea and unconstitutional.

frockington1 7y ago
The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.
- chmod775 7y ago
  I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    More likely you would be pressured to cooperate under a plea bargain to avoid getting Martha Stewart'd.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    You don't have to lie, but a judge and /or jury need to be convinced that, when you said something that conflicted with some other evidence, you were lying. What you actually believe to be true doesn't matter.
    - chmod775 7y ago
      That's almost literally what I said?
  - arminiusreturns 7y ago
    For those who know, this is a standard fed tactic, and yes you absolutely can lie accidentally! Heres how it works: Interview the person multiple times, grilling them hard, using all the classic techniques. Repeat the exact same questions in each interview, interspersed with variations. When you don't get any confession or evidence from them, comb through the transcripts to find a place where the "exact same" questions have different answers. All it takes is a slight change, a slip of the memory, a slip of the tongue... Boom, now you can get them on "lying to the feds", and use that threat to leverage a plea deal or some other information. It is an abusive tactic used all the time. If I hear someone is getting caught on "lying to the feds" I assume it means the evidentiary case is extremely weak and thats all they can get.
    - yonaguska 7y ago
      The german film , The Lives of Others, captures this technique spectacularly.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation I understand that that's how the system works today. I object to it. 1) It doesn't account for fallibility of human memory, and our propensity to make mistakes. I believe that it's easy to badger a person to the point where they're intellectually disoriented, and "lies" become likely even without the suspect have bad intentions. 2) The asymmetry is a problem. Law enforcement routinely lies to suspects. Why is it okay for them morally? 3) We're told that these laws are necessary to prevent obstruction of justice, but it appears that these charges are frequently (maybe usually) when there was no obstruction at all: the police knew exactly what the truth was. They were setting a trap for the suspect, trying to get them to incriminate themselves in a different way. Caveat: I didn't RTFA, since it's paywalled.
ailideex 7y ago
> It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Just because something is illegal does not mean it should be illegal - and as far as dumb ass things to be illegal goes I think lying to the FBI is high up on that list. There is already obstruction of justice which is significantly more reasonable a crime to charge someone with and if your lying was not obstruction of justice I don't see why the FBI should get to jail you for it.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Isn't obstruction of justice only for a judicial proceeding? It wouldn't seem to cover so many of the other cases.
- openasocket 7y ago
  Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Obstruction of justice is a blanket term for crimes falling under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73. The only one that comes close is § 1510: Obstruction of criminal investigations. From the name it sure sounds like lying to investigators would fall under it, but if you read the text it only covers certain specific acts of obstruction like bribery. Making false statements to law enforcement falls user 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47, which covers fraud and false statements. In this case it would be § 1001. So yeah, kind of confusing, but that's why there's a separate term for making false statements.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    > Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Great. It should not be.
thanksgiving 7y ago
> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours. > You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie). I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any change in how the machines work. So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mdorazio 7y ago
  >I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?
  - mikhailt 7y ago
whorleater 7y ago
You can avoid committing that crime by refusing to speak to agents.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  True.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shireboy 7y ago
One problem with that line of thought is that law is so complex that just about anybody could easily be tripped up by an agent educated on the nuances of the law. While most agents are honest, truth-seeking individuals, clearly some harbor political bias and/or are being used for ideological ends. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of Police under Stalin A system that is highly secretive and whose only accountability is to pretend to investigate itself inevitably will be abused more than an open one with transparent checks and balances. One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...)
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. I don't think that logic follows? That statistic could just mean that they're actually doing most things legally and properly, which is the outcome you'd want, right? I'd be worried if a significant percentage of their requests were turned down. Also, as a comparison point: apparently several federal judicial districts have a 100% conviction rate, and overall, federal conviction rates are pretty high. Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? [1] [1] http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_67/federal_courts_jd67.pdf http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_67/federal_courts_jd67....
  - _jal 7y ago
    > Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts?
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      > That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused. Possibly, but that's a separate point from the one I'm making. > Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts? Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline.
merpnderp 7y ago
Why would anyone talk to the FBI? They don't record interrogations, but rather rely upon the memory of the investigator who has up to 3 months to record what was said. And if his memory doesn't match what you claim you said, you are automatically lying and guilty. It's such an obvious route of official abuse of power, I'm not for getting rid of the FBI and starting over. How could you trust anyone who was willing to work in that environment?
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  It doesn't matter if agents record your conversation. At trial, the recording will only be trusted to the extent that the agent's testimony as to its provenance is trusted. If your testimony is important to the trial, you'll be asked to deliver it again in person, or in a deposition; either way you will have an opportunity to prep with your counsel. In theory, a recording could be detrimental to you, as either the prosecution or defense would have a chance to play up tiny inconsistencies between your first recording and your live testimony/deposition. Without the recording, the best they can do is have the agent testify "that's not what he/she said the first time." Which doesn't really matter. If you get prosecuted for lying to the agent, again, you would have a chance to testify at trial, and for your counsel to try to impeach the agent in front of the jury.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    "If you get prosecuted for lying to the agent, again, you would have a chance to testify at trial, and for your counsel to try to impeach the agent in front of the jury." Lol, your word against a federal agent's. How well did that work out for Martha Stewart and her literal army of top end lawyers?
beerandt 7y ago
Which is why obstruction and false statement type charges should not hold if there is no underlying crime, or if the person is not convicted of it. Does this have it's own pitfalls? Certainly. But it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
cryptonector 7y ago
You can't avoid lying to them if you speak to them, even if you're completely innocent. This should be required viewing for just about everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE They will use any unconscious fib about any detail, no matter how irrelevant, to impeach you in court. The simplest thing to do is not speak to LEOs at all when they approach you.
- pc86 7y ago
  It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement. Lying a local PO is not (necessarily) a crime, however it's possible that your state has a statute making it a crime. So at the local and state level, lying law enforcement is possibly, but not certainly, a crime. Lying (even unintentionally!) to a federal LEO is a crime in every jurisdiction.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    No, no, no. It doesn't matter whether lying to an LEO is a crime or not!! The mere act of lying to them will be used in court to impeach your story, and your testimony should you testify (which is one reason you wouldn't). You almost certainly won't be allowed to impeach the LEO's testimony based on their lies to you or other subterfuge: it's essentially a given that they can do that as part of their investigations, and the court and jury will be very deferential to them and not to the defendant.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    >It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement It's actually much broader than that. Making a material false statement to any federal agent (for example your local postman), about something in his jurisdiction (say, the mail) is enough to qualify. Note the "material" part. If you lie about the color of socks you are wearing, it doesn't matter.
davidwitt415 7y ago
FYI, it's also a crime to lie to the FISA court and to lie under oath to Congress. The FBI did both, as did other members of the security state, most notably John Brennan and Jim Clapper. If we are a nation of laws not men then those in power need to be held accountable for their crimes too.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  I agree that people in power should be held to the standards of the law.
  - raincom 7y ago
    The powerful people(prosecutors, for instance) use prosecutorial discretion to NOT prosecute those who are in the power. It is the revolving door, and collusion between powerful classes.
Shivetya 7y ago
She was accused of making false statements to committing insider trading and the issues surround that claim, so they prosecuted her for statements they claimed false about a crime, insider trading, which they did not charge her with. So combined with charges of security fraud is what they ultimately got her with. so how can you lie about something you are never taken to court for? if she was guilty of insider trading it would make sense to prosecute that, prove that, then that proves the charge of not telling the truth. this is all part and parcel of federal prosecutions where they lay on as many charges as possible in order to intimidate you. Welcome to the world that led to Aaron Swartz's death.
lurquer 7y ago
And, how does one prove you lied? The recorded statement? No. There is, by policy, rarely a recorded statement. Rather, it's just your word vs. the agent's notes. That's absurd. How do you defend yourself when an FBI agent says you said X if (a) the agent, by policy, did not record your conversation and (b) if you dared surreptitiously record the conversation, it would be a separate crime?
throwawaylalala 7y ago
Popehat has a great example of why you shouldn't ever speak with the FBI: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...
alasdair_ 7y ago
>It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. 18 USC Section 1001 is notoriously broad - for example, your local postman is a federal agent, it doesn't just pertain to law enforcement officials. You don't even need to lie directly to the agent - for example if you fudge your hours on a timesheet and that timesheet gets sent to the federal government for some use or other, you "knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States." It doesn't matter if you're not under oath. It doesn't matter if you've been read your miranda rights - any material lie that is made to a federal employee within their jurisdiction is an offense. Sadly, this means that in almost every case, the only reasonable thing to do is to refuse to talk to the agent and to ask for an attorney if they insist.

frockington1 7y ago

The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.

chmod775 7y ago
I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  More likely you would be pressured to cooperate under a plea bargain to avoid getting Martha Stewart'd.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  You don't have to lie, but a judge and /or jury need to be convinced that, when you said something that conflicted with some other evidence, you were lying. What you actually believe to be true doesn't matter.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    That's almost literally what I said?
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  For those who know, this is a standard fed tactic, and yes you absolutely can lie accidentally! Heres how it works: Interview the person multiple times, grilling them hard, using all the classic techniques. Repeat the exact same questions in each interview, interspersed with variations. When you don't get any confession or evidence from them, comb through the transcripts to find a place where the "exact same" questions have different answers. All it takes is a slight change, a slip of the memory, a slip of the tongue... Boom, now you can get them on "lying to the feds", and use that threat to leverage a plea deal or some other information. It is an abusive tactic used all the time. If I hear someone is getting caught on "lying to the feds" I assume it means the evidentiary case is extremely weak and thats all they can get.
  - yonaguska 7y ago
    The german film , The Lives of Others, captures this technique spectacularly.

CWuestefeld 7y ago

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation I understand that that's how the system works today. I object to it. 1) It doesn't account for fallibility of human memory, and our propensity to make mistakes. I believe that it's easy to badger a person to the point where they're intellectually disoriented, and "lies" become likely even without the suspect have bad intentions. 2) The asymmetry is a problem. Law enforcement routinely lies to suspects. Why is it okay for them morally? 3) We're told that these laws are necessary to prevent obstruction of justice, but it appears that these charges are frequently (maybe usually) when there was no obstruction at all: the police knew exactly what the truth was. They were setting a trap for the suspect, trying to get them to incriminate themselves in a different way. Caveat: I didn't RTFA, since it's paywalled.

ailideex 7y ago

> It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Just because something is illegal does not mean it should be illegal - and as far as dumb ass things to be illegal goes I think lying to the FBI is high up on that list. There is already obstruction of justice which is significantly more reasonable a crime to charge someone with and if your lying was not obstruction of justice I don't see why the FBI should get to jail you for it.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Isn't obstruction of justice only for a judicial proceeding? It wouldn't seem to cover so many of the other cases.
openasocket 7y ago
Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Obstruction of justice is a blanket term for crimes falling under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73. The only one that comes close is § 1510: Obstruction of criminal investigations. From the name it sure sounds like lying to investigators would fall under it, but if you read the text it only covers certain specific acts of obstruction like bribery. Making false statements to law enforcement falls user 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47, which covers fraud and false statements. In this case it would be § 1001. So yeah, kind of confusing, but that's why there's a separate term for making false statements.
- ailideex 7y ago
  > Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Great. It should not be.

thanksgiving 7y ago

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours. > You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie). I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any change in how the machines work. So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mdorazio 7y ago
>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?
- mikhailt 7y ago

whorleater 7y ago

You can avoid committing that crime by refusing to speak to agents.

snowwrestler 7y ago
True.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shireboy 7y ago

One problem with that line of thought is that law is so complex that just about anybody could easily be tripped up by an agent educated on the nuances of the law. While most agents are honest, truth-seeking individuals, clearly some harbor political bias and/or are being used for ideological ends. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of Police under Stalin A system that is highly secretive and whose only accountability is to pretend to investigate itself inevitably will be abused more than an open one with transparent checks and balances. One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...)

mehrdadn 7y ago
> One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. I don't think that logic follows? That statistic could just mean that they're actually doing most things legally and properly, which is the outcome you'd want, right? I'd be worried if a significant percentage of their requests were turned down. Also, as a comparison point: apparently several federal judicial districts have a 100% conviction rate, and overall, federal conviction rates are pretty high. Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? [1] [1] http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_67/federal_courts_jd67.pdf http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_67/federal_courts_jd67....
- _jal 7y ago
  > Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts?
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused. Possibly, but that's a separate point from the one I'm making. > Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts? Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline.

merpnderp 7y ago

Why would anyone talk to the FBI? They don't record interrogations, but rather rely upon the memory of the investigator who has up to 3 months to record what was said. And if his memory doesn't match what you claim you said, you are automatically lying and guilty. It's such an obvious route of official abuse of power, I'm not for getting rid of the FBI and starting over. How could you trust anyone who was willing to work in that environment?

snowwrestler 7y ago
It doesn't matter if agents record your conversation. At trial, the recording will only be trusted to the extent that the agent's testimony as to its provenance is trusted. If your testimony is important to the trial, you'll be asked to deliver it again in person, or in a deposition; either way you will have an opportunity to prep with your counsel. In theory, a recording could be detrimental to you, as either the prosecution or defense would have a chance to play up tiny inconsistencies between your first recording and your live testimony/deposition. Without the recording, the best they can do is have the agent testify "that's not what he/she said the first time." Which doesn't really matter. If you get prosecuted for lying to the agent, again, you would have a chance to testify at trial, and for your counsel to try to impeach the agent in front of the jury.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  "If you get prosecuted for lying to the agent, again, you would have a chance to testify at trial, and for your counsel to try to impeach the agent in front of the jury." Lol, your word against a federal agent's. How well did that work out for Martha Stewart and her literal army of top end lawyers?

beerandt 7y ago

Which is why obstruction and false statement type charges should not hold if there is no underlying crime, or if the person is not convicted of it. Does this have it's own pitfalls? Certainly. But it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

cryptonector 7y ago

You can't avoid lying to them if you speak to them, even if you're completely innocent. This should be required viewing for just about everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE They will use any unconscious fib about any detail, no matter how irrelevant, to impeach you in court. The simplest thing to do is not speak to LEOs at all when they approach you.

pc86 7y ago
It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement. Lying a local PO is not (necessarily) a crime, however it's possible that your state has a statute making it a crime. So at the local and state level, lying law enforcement is possibly, but not certainly, a crime. Lying (even unintentionally!) to a federal LEO is a crime in every jurisdiction.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  No, no, no. It doesn't matter whether lying to an LEO is a crime or not!! The mere act of lying to them will be used in court to impeach your story, and your testimony should you testify (which is one reason you wouldn't). You almost certainly won't be allowed to impeach the LEO's testimony based on their lies to you or other subterfuge: it's essentially a given that they can do that as part of their investigations, and the court and jury will be very deferential to them and not to the defendant.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  >It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement It's actually much broader than that. Making a material false statement to any federal agent (for example your local postman), about something in his jurisdiction (say, the mail) is enough to qualify. Note the "material" part. If you lie about the color of socks you are wearing, it doesn't matter.

davidwitt415 7y ago

FYI, it's also a crime to lie to the FISA court and to lie under oath to Congress. The FBI did both, as did other members of the security state, most notably John Brennan and Jim Clapper. If we are a nation of laws not men then those in power need to be held accountable for their crimes too.

snowwrestler 7y ago
I agree that people in power should be held to the standards of the law.
- raincom 7y ago
  The powerful people(prosecutors, for instance) use prosecutorial discretion to NOT prosecute those who are in the power. It is the revolving door, and collusion between powerful classes.

Shivetya 7y ago

She was accused of making false statements to committing insider trading and the issues surround that claim, so they prosecuted her for statements they claimed false about a crime, insider trading, which they did not charge her with. So combined with charges of security fraud is what they ultimately got her with. so how can you lie about something you are never taken to court for? if she was guilty of insider trading it would make sense to prosecute that, prove that, then that proves the charge of not telling the truth. this is all part and parcel of federal prosecutions where they lay on as many charges as possible in order to intimidate you. Welcome to the world that led to Aaron Swartz's death.

lurquer 7y ago

And, how does one prove you lied? The recorded statement? No. There is, by policy, rarely a recorded statement. Rather, it's just your word vs. the agent's notes. That's absurd. How do you defend yourself when an FBI agent says you said X if (a) the agent, by policy, did not record your conversation and (b) if you dared surreptitiously record the conversation, it would be a separate crime?

throwawaylalala 7y ago

Popehat has a great example of why you shouldn't ever speak with the FBI: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...

alasdair_ 7y ago

>It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. 18 USC Section 1001 is notoriously broad - for example, your local postman is a federal agent, it doesn't just pertain to law enforcement officials. You don't even need to lie directly to the agent - for example if you fudge your hours on a timesheet and that timesheet gets sent to the federal government for some use or other, you "knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States." It doesn't matter if you're not under oath. It doesn't matter if you've been read your miranda rights - any material lie that is made to a federal employee within their jurisdiction is an offense. Sadly, this means that in almost every case, the only reasonable thing to do is to refuse to talk to the agent and to ask for an attorney if they insist.