Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes BulletinKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Public Corruption Prosecutions in New York

By Daniel G. Cort and Daniel R. Alonso
March 27, 2012

The Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), in which the Court limited the federal honest services mail fraud doctrine to cases involving bribes and kickbacks, dealt the federal government a setback. For years, the Justice Department (DOJ) had delved into local public corruption matters under the guise of protecting the citizenry from schemes designed to deprive them of the faithfulness of their officials. Whereas earlier honest services prosecutions tackled undisclosed self-dealing in public contracts and other secret financial interests that did not necessarily rise to the level of quid pro quo bribery, Skilling ensures that the federal government will now be as circumscribed as state prosecutors have been, limited to actual bribery and kickbacks.

In other words, to prosecute state actors for bribery, the government now needs to live, essentially, by state rules. The contours of the Skilling decision are beyond the scope of this article, which will focus instead on the example of New York State and the prosecution of public corruption offenses under that state's law. Although federal and state prosecutors in New York who wish to prosecute state and local officials after Skilling are now on similar footing with respect to bribery, New York prosecutors have several additional tools in their arsenal. A case in point is the recent prosecution of former New York State comptroller Alan Hevesi, discussed below, in which then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo effectively used a statute other than bribery to prosecute public corruption.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.