Federal prosecutors have historically focused a significant portion of their investigative and prosecutorial resources on rooting out corruption in local and State Government. They frequently will focus on high-profile public officials who they perceive may be immune from prosecution by State prosecutors due to political influence.

Federal laws outlaw bribery not only of Federal officials, but State and local officials in agencies that are, in part, funded by the Federal Government. Similarly, Federal prosecutors frequently pursue the givers and receivers of gratuities if a connection can be drawn between the gift and a benefit expected by the giver.

Mail and wire fraud are also used as a tool for fighting corruption. Mail fraud makes it a Federal crime to execute a “scheme or artifice to defraud” that uses the U.S. mail, or similar private or commercial carrier (U.P.S., Federal Express, etc.). Wire fraud similarly prohibits the execution of a “scheme or artifice to defraud” that uses “wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce”. Both of these offenses carry penalties of 20 years in Federal prison. It is the use of interstate mail and wire transfers that give the Federal Courts jurisdiction over what would otherwise be a case of fraud that could only be prosecuted in State Court.

There were many public corruption cases where there is no evidence that the “victim” Government was deprived of any money or property. To maintain prosecutions in those cases, imaginative Federal prosecutors created a new harm that could satisfy the requirement that the “victim” Government be deprived of something in order to prove fraud. Proof that the “victim” Government was deprived of the “intangible right of honest services” by the offending public official was sufficient to convict of mail or wire fraud. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of McNally v. United States, and invalidated the “honest services” theory of prosecution holding that the “victim” Government must suffer a financial loss as a result of the scheme or artifice to defraud. Reacting to the McMally holding, the U.S. Congress passed 18 U.S.C., Section 1346, which codified the “honest services” theory of prosecution. In United States v. Skilling, the U.S. Supreme Court limited “the intangible right of honest services” theory of prosecution to bribery or kickback schemes.

Federal prosecutors have also applied the Federal Extortion Statute, the Hobbs Act, to public corruption cases. The theory being that the public official is threatening economic loss to the person from whom he is seeking a benefit. The threat of losing business and money by failing to pay the money demanded is then prosecuted as an extortion. Many of these types of cases hinge on the extent to which the prosecution can prove a quid pro quo.

When there is systematic corruption, Federal prosecutors have been known to prosecute under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). RICO prosecutions have been particularly useful in cases where judicial corruption is ubiquitous. For example, in the early 1990’s, the FBI launched Operation Court Broom to prosecute judicial corruption in Miami-Dade County both in the selling of cases and the payment of kickbacks by lawyers to judges. That case was prosecuted under the RICO Statute.

Charles G. White represented one of the attorneys in the Operation Court Broom prosecution. He has handled, and is now handling, public corruption cases. Mr. White has developed the knowledge and experience necessary to effectively represent persons being prosecution for public corruption.

Obtain Legal Assistance

If you or someone you know is accused of a Federal crime, it is imperative that you work with an attorney who has experience in these cases. Charles G. White has represented hundreds of clients in Federal Courts throughout the United States. He has the experience and knowledge essential to obtain the best possible result. Charles G. White. He has over 34 years of experience with these types of cases and will defend you and your rights.