conduct violative of both statutes. The two areas not common to both circles represent sets of conduct reached only by one or the other statute. This situation is also described by the following common mathematical notation: 5 . See supra p. 693 n. 1. 6 . During oral argument, government counsel provided an illustrative example of the type of conduct that falls within the scope of § 7206(5), but is not covered by § 7201. A drug dealer may have an outstanding tax obligation and decide to submit an offer-in-compromise. On the Form 656, the drug dealer may falsely state that the “source of funds” is legitimate business activity, but otherwise fill out the forms accurately and correctly. Under those circumstances, the drug dealer could not be prosecuted for tax evasion un th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hale, No. 91-5597, 1992 WL
holding that the government may charge a defendant who forges an endorsement on a us treasury check under either 18 usc  641 the general conversion statute or 18 usc  510 which specifically prohibits forging endorsements on treasury checks holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for corrupt persuasion of a jury witness under either 18 usc  1503 which prohibits obstruction of justice or 18 usc  1512 which prohibits tampering with a witness holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc  2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc  2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes