Bribery Statutes

Political Officials and Witnesses Title 18 U.S.C Sec. 201

Merceda D. Gooding

Review Statute Summary

18 U.S.C. 201 - Bribery of Public Officials and Witness statute was enacted October 23, 1962. 18 U.S.C. - Is the United States Code for federal prosecution of public corruption. Bribery is the practice of offering, giving, receiving or soliciting something of value for the purpose of personal gain discharging the public official duties. 201 (a) 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). 201 (b) A person bribing a public official with the intent to influence the performance of a public duty.

Analyze and Evaluate Case I

The facts of the case the United States v. Michael A. Brown , a former public official violated 18 U.S.C 201 (b)(2)(A). Michael A. Brown, a former Councilman in the District of Columbia accepted bribes during the time and after serving office (July 11, 2012 to March 14, 2013). It was allege that Michael A. Brown used his political influence and connection to receive bribes for personal monetary gain conducting illegal bribery schemes. Michael directly and indirectly corruptly demanded, sought, received, accepted and agreed to receive and accept things of value personally, violating the statue 18 USC 201. Michael Brown met with undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen. He accepted $55,000.00 in cash from the undercover FBI agents.

Analyze and Evaluate Case I

cont.

Michael promise and provided assistance to undercover FBI agents to obtain an approved Certified Business Enterprise document from the District of Columbias Department of Small Business Development. He guaranteed contracting opportunities with the undercover FBI (posing as businessmen) agents in the District of Columbia. On June 12, 2013, Michael plead guilty, there was no legal issue. The court ruled a money judgment against Michael with the amount of $35,000.00 and faces 37 months in prison.

Analyze and Evaluate Case II

United States v. Brewster, 506 F. 2d. 62 (D.C. Cir, 1974) The Facts in this case, the defendant Daniel B. Brewster, a former U. S. Senator from Maryland, was indicted for five counts for accepting bribes and gratuities violating 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1) and (g). Payments were made to the U.S. Senator for the alleged purpose to corruptly influence the performance of his official duties. Payments were made to the Senator for the purpose of his re-election by creating a false political committee. The district court jury was instructed to decide on the two elements of the two federal crimes under bribes or gratuities statute 18 U.S.C. 201. The jury convicted the Senator of a lesser crime; receiving gratuities. The Senator appealed the case. The Senator continued to serve political office during the trail.

Analyze and Evaluate Case II

cont.
The issue - the U.S. Court of Appeals had to determine whether the district court Judge explain to the jury instructions that had adequately incorporated this distinction. The jury has to decide if the crime was bribery or gratuity under 18 U.S.C Statute Sec. 201. The final rule: The U.S. Court of Appeal find that on the facts of this case a conviction under the gratuity section 201(g) as a lesser included offense within the bribery section

201(c)(1)2 could be sustained.

Indentify and discuss the legal ramifications and violations of any legal subjects and or decisions related to any constitutional principles and/or administrative agencies.

Under 18 U.S.C 201 statute, the punishments 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. Disqualification from holding office of honor, trust or profit under the U.S. government. Or properly discharge from official duty. Gratuity is a lesser charge up to two years of prison and a fine.

Support Statute 18 U.S.C Sec. 201

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 hold public officials accountable and responsible for their actions. The statute exposes corruption and the need to strengthen regulations.

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

References
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.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partIchap11-sec201/content-detail.html

References
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-abrown-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