Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is an 'Official Act' An Element of Public and Private Corruption?
In recent years, prosecutions of public corruption have often centered on whether a government official committed an "official act." The importance of that question derives from the Supreme Court's decision in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), in which the Supreme Court held that commission of an "official act" is required to sustain a conviction for honest services fraud and Hobbs Act violations. The Second Circuit has addressed the issue in several high-profile prosecutions of state officials. See, e.g., United States v. Silver, 948 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2020).
The holding in McDonnell has led to the question of whether "official act" is an element of other crimes involving public and private corruption. The Second Circuit has thus far said no, holding that an "official act" need not be an element of bribery involving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §666, and foreign corrupt practices under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1 et seq. United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019); see, Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan Sack, "Limiting the Reach of the Supreme Court's 'McDonnell' Decision," N.Y.L.J. (Oct. 1, 2019).
While honest services fraud is charged most prominently in cases of alleged public corruption, the charge is often leveled in prosecutions for dishonest conduct in corporate and other private settings, such as a purchasing manager secretly accepting bribes or kickbacks for steering business. In this light, McDonnell leads to additional questions: Is "official act" an element of a private as well as public honest services fraud charge? What would an "official act" mean when an individual puts her private interests ahead of the interests of her employer?
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.