The Honest Services of Public Officials 2019
Purchasers have access to all three of the following file formats:
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding the crime of honest-services fraud.
To convict someone of honest-services fraud, the government must prove that there is an agreement to pay a bribe or kickback. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 408-09 (2010). [T]his reaches schemes that involve a stream of benefits over time, not just singly negotiated deals. See Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845, 852 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560, 568 (3d Cir. 2012) ("The bribery theory does not require that each quid, or item of value, be linked to a specific quo, or official act."). US v. Solomon, (7th Cir. 2018).
Both the federal mail and wire fraud statutes require, among other things, that the defendant have executed a "scheme or artifice to defraud." 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. 18 U.S.C. § 1346, in turn, provides that "the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." This includes depriving "the public of its right to the honest services of its legislators." Woodward v. US, (1st Cir. 2018).