Bribery Schemes Notes Merceda Gooding

7/28/2019 Bribery Schemes Notes Merceda Gooding

1/8

Bribery Schemes

Public Officials and Witnesses

Throughout American history, Aristotle, a political philosopher identified the true forms

of government. Other political philosophers such as Polybius, Machiavelli and Harrington or

commonwealth men have been concerned about corrupt governments, rule with the view to the

private interest (Strauss, L & Cropsey, J., 1987).

The Founding Fathers Madison, Hamilton and other American founders grappled with

the problem of corruption. First they had to figure out and understand how perverted and

corrupted government was in order to search ways to create an incorruptible form of true

government. Today, in the news media, newspapers and internet there are stories of political

corruption on a daily basis. Some believe that the system is broken beyond repair. It is afflicted

by an endemic influence-peddling corruption due to political bribery (Gray, B, 2012); a part of

systematic corruption. Could bribery start from lobbyists, corporations and trade groups

supporting and creating fundraisers for Congress and Presidential elections? With millions of

dollars to receive special favors, some say a gathering of money and influence unrivaled in

politics (Gray, B., 2012). Since the Supreme Courts decision in 2010, the Citizens United case

removing all legal restrictions on corporate funding of elections campaigns, both bribers and the

bribed have concluded they have the green light. Political bribery lays the root of the political

dysfunction in this country, and the dire consequences for average citizens. There has been a

bribery epidemic spreading across the United States by public officials however through

changing of laws and regulations; legislatures try to curb bribes and corruption that gain illicit

advantage.


2/8

18 U.S.C. Is the United States Code for federal prosecution of public corruption.

18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery of Public Officials and Witness was enacted October 23, 1962 by Public

Law 87-849 as part of a comprehensive conflict-of-Interest reform legislation. (U.S. GPO, 2011,

18 U.S.C. 201).

The Statute punishes the following acts of bribery or gratuity Public Officials within

the meaning of 201(a), and thus are subject to prosecution under the 201(b) bribery statute or

201(c) gratuity statute are both are common elements. According to 18 USC 201 any person

whoever directly or indirectly, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with

the intent to influence of any official act or testimony to commit fraud or make an opportunity of

any fraud. Or any public official influencing the performance of any official act in violation of

official duty, directly or indirectly for anything in value is in violation of this statute.

Define bribery - Bribery is the practice of offering, giving, receiving or soliciting

something of value for the purpose of personal gain discharging the public official duties.

Define a public official - A public official is define as an officer or employee or person

acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of

Government thereof, in any official function, under or by authority of any such

department, agency, or branch of Government (Dixson v. United States).

There are other acts under this statute, such as, a person demand bribery to influence

testimony under oath as a witness in trial or a person giving anything in value for testimony

under oath as a witness of a tail is considered bribery under this statue. This includes prohibiting

bribery of a bank examiner; travel in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in unlawful

activity, commercial bribery and the Travel Act.

Recent case held on 6/12/13, the United States v. Michael Brown, violating 18 USC 201


3/8

(b)(2)(A). United States v. Michael A. Brown , former public official violated 18 U.S.C 201 (b)

(2)(A); Michael A. Brown was former Councilman of District of Columbia and accepted bribes

during the time serving in office (July 11, 2012 to March 14, 2013). He served on various

boards within the District of Columbia which his name is recognized in the community.

He used his political influence and connection to receive personal monetary gain for

bribery. He met with undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen and made illegal deals with

them. Michael Brown directly and indirectly corruptly demanded, sought, received, accepted and

agreed to receive and accept things of value personally, violating the statue 18 USC 201. At

different meetings, he accepted collectively $55,000.00 in cash from undercover FBI agents who

was acting as false company representative.

Michael Brown arranges a meeting with undercover agents posing as business men, he

promises to assist them with a Certified Business Enterprise license, in return, and the guarantee

of contracting opportunities within the District of Columbia. Former Councilman Michael A.

Brown pleaded guilty to the violation of 18 USC 201 charges because of a bribery scheme and

violating public trust. It was ruled that he have to pay restitution of $ 35,000 and serve 37 months

in prison which would start in October 2013.

There is a rise of violation of public trust and bribery schemes emerging nationally in the

United States. There has been an corruption conspiracy within the last 18 months in the District

of Columbia which includes Michael former council colleagues Kwame Brown, a former council

President pleaded guilty on bank fraud and received a suspended sentence (misdemeanor), 480

hours of community service and D.C. Councilman Harry Thomas, Jr., was sentence to 3 years in

prison embezzling public funds that was for the youth programs. In New York, another bribery

scheme state legislator Eric Stevenson, a Democratic state assemblyman accepted $22,000 in


4/8

bribes to help developers open an adult day care center in his district. Assemblyman Castro

resigns from his office to avoid prosecution with this same allegation of bribery schemes.

Malcolm Smith, a state senator, was arrested for bribery and corruption scheme that involved

Daniel Halloran, II along with leaders of the Republican Party. Recently, the former Mayor

Regin of Louisiana and his Deputy, Meffert was indicted; Regin received 21 counts for alleged

bribery schemes and corruption during Katrina.

The case U. S. v. Brewster- The defendant Daniel B. Brewster, former United States

Senator from Maryland was indicted for five of the counts accepting alleged bribes and gratuities

as defined by 18 U.S.C. 201(c) (1). The jury convicted him not on the bribery charges under

section 201(c) (1), but on the illegal gratuity section 201(g), defined by the district court trial

judge's instructions as a lesser included offense. This appeal arises from conviction of defendant

Brewster on three counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. 201(c) (1), Bribery of

Public Officials and Witnesses. The two of the counts against Brewster were dismissed, leaving

Counts 3 and 5 (originally Counts 5 and 7), which he was charged that while he was a Senator.

The crime of bribery (in violation of 201(b)) and the crime of accepting a gratuity (in

violation of 201(c)) require proof of the same basic elements: In general terms, these are the

following: 1. A public official; 2. A thing of value; 3. A request or receipt by the official, or an

offer or promise to the official, of that thing of value; 4. For the benefit of the official or (in the

case of section 201(b) bribery of some other person or entity); 5. With the requisite connection to

an official act; 6. With the requisite intent.

The senator continued to serve in political office during the trials.

Councilman Brewster appealed the district court decision and the appeals court had to

determine the distinction between the gratuity and bribery, which gratuity is a lesser charge. The


5/8

court find that on the facts this case a conviction under the gratuity section 201(g) as a lesser

included offense within the bribery section 201(c)(1)could be sustained. The court finds that 18

U.S.C. 201(g) unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to elected public officeholders.

The appeals court find, however, that the trial judge failed in his conscientious effort to set forth

a clear and comprehensible standard for the jury to make the difficult tripartite distinction among

receiving bribery payments within section (c)(1), receiving illegal gratuities within section (g),

and receiving legal normal campaign contributions. The Court of Appeals therefore reverse and

remand for a new trial, at which the task of the trial judge will be somewhat lighter, as he will

now need only to distinguish between accepting illegal gratuities under section 201(g) and

receiving legal campaign contributions.

The legal ramifications of violating this statute 18 USC 201, whoever directly or

indirectly corruptly gives offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent

to influence that persons official act will be fined for the offense of bribery.

The punishments prescribed are:

Fines of an amount not more than three times the monetary equivalent of thing of value.

Imprisonment for not more than 15 years or both.

Disqualified from holding office of honor, trust or profit under the U.S. government

properly discharge from official duty.

Or properly discharge from official duty

Gratuity is the less serious offense of payment or receipt of an official gratuity, or a tip

for some kind of service (punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine)

18 USC 201 In 1962 provisions were consolidated into a single statute, the Bribery Act (P.L. 87-

849, 76 Stat. 1119).


6/8

I support Title 18 USC statute because:

The statute decreases corruption and bribes.

The statute stabilizes public trust and government integrity.

The statute governs how public officials conduct business and public interest.

The statute brings positive quality and value back to government.

The statute holds public officials accountable and responsible for their actions.

The statute exposes corruption and the need to strengthen these regulations.

Bribery has been subject to legal prohibitions of one sort or another since the beginning

of recorded legal history. Today, despite significant variations in the level of enforcement,

bribery is recognized as a criminal offense in nearly every country in the world. Indeed, it is hard

to imagine a modern political or legal system that does not at least claim to condemn such

practices. The crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence

a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his or her duties. Bribery

can also involve corrupt dealing with the employees of a business competitor in order to secure

an advantage. Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a quid pro quo relationship in which the

recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift however gratuity doesnt have to prove

(quid pro quo) however its a lesser crime. I support statute 18 USC Sec. 201 and the

strengthening of new statutes and regulations; hire special prosecutors, and the creation

watchdog agencies are developed to fight governmental corruption and to strive to bring back

public trust.


7/8

References

Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984). Retrieved June 11, 2013 from

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/482/

Federal Laws on Bribery. US Legal. Retrieved June 11, 2013 from

http://bribery.uslegal.com/federal-laws-on-bribery/

Find Law.For legal professionals. 18 U.S.C. 434: US Code: Section 434:

Repealed. Pub. L. 87-849, Sec. 2, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126]

Retrieved June 10, 2013 from

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/23/434

Gray, B. (2012). Corporate bribery and political corruption on display at Republican,

Democratic and Convention. World Socialist Web. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/08/conv-a28.html

Stephen, E. (1996). Aristotle. The Politics and the Constitution of

Athens. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, L. & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of Political Philosophy.3rd (Ed).

Chicago &London. The University of Chicago Press.

Szypszak, C. (2011). Understanding Law for Public Administration.

Jones & Bartlett: Sudbury, MA

U. S. Government Printing Office (2011). Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Sec. (201)

Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses. Retrieved June 12, 2013 from
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/08/conv-a28.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/08/conv-a28.html


8/8

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-

chap11-sec201/content-detail.html

United States v. Brewster, 506 U.S. F.2d. 62 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Retrieved June

12, 2013 from

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9

United States v. Michael A. Brown, 18 U.S.C 201(b) (2) (A) Bribery of a Public

Official. Washington Post. DC Politics. Retrieved June 12, 2013.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/michael-a-

brown-statement-of-offense/476/

Weisner, B. & Santora, M. (2013). In 2nd Alleged Bribe Scheme, a Legislator

Was In on the Case. New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/nyregion/assemblyman-ericstevenson-

is-accused-of-taking-bribes.html? pagewanted

Documents

Bribery Schemes Notes Merceda Gooding