Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Gratuities and Honest Services Fraud
As noted in Part One of this article, in Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the honest services fraud statute (18 U.S.C. ' 1346) to “bribery and kickback” schemes, yet did not define what a “bribery” or “kickback” scheme must entail. So the question becomes this: Must a “bribe or kickback” involve a quid pro quo ' a specific intent to give or receive something in exchange for favorable official action? Or will payment of a gratuity as a reward for official action suffice to support a prosecution for honest services fraud? The debate continues.
Post-Skilling Uncertainty
In reviewing challenges to honest services fraud convictions after Skilling , some courts have referenced the broad definition of “kickback” under the Anti-Kickback Act and found that the government is not required to establish that an official act was taken in exchange for a payment. In United States v. Nicolo, 421 Fed. Appx. 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2011), the defendant, a town assessor, had pleaded guilty pre- Skilling to receiving money in connection with tax assessments, but in his allocution he had expressly disclaimed that the money was a quid pro quo for favorable treatment. The Second Circuit ' in a non-precedential opinion ' rejected his post-Skilling argument that his plea lacked a sufficient factual basis, holding that because the defendant “freely acknowledged receiving money in connection with the assessment reductions that he had arranged,” such conduct amounted to “kickbacks” sufficient to warrant prosecution under ' 1346. See also United States v. Yaron, 2011 WL 3279054, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2011) (stating that gratuities fall within the definition of a kickback under Skilling).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?