Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions
Proof of a "quid pro quo," giving something of value in return for a specific action, is central to federal public corruption prosecutions. In recent years, cases have tended to focus on the "quo" part of the exchange — that is, the act a public official takes in return for the "quid." See generally, Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack, "Limiting the Reach of the Supreme Court's 'McDonnell' Decision, NYLJ (Oct. 1, 2019). The Supreme Court's adoption of a narrow definition of "official act," in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), turned out to have a significant impact on public corruption cases, for example, the Second Circuit's partial reversal of convictions of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. See, United States v. Silver, 948 F.3d 538, 545 (2d Cir. 2020).
In contrast, some recent prosecutions have drawn attention to the "quid" part of the equation — that is, the thing of value a public official receives in return for a corrupt official act. These prosecutions, alleging benefit beyond the traditional receipt of money or other gifts, have led to interesting questions regarding whether, and under what circumstances, the enhancement of a public official's political power and patronage amount to an improper "quid."
This article first describes two pending federal prosecutions, which level corruption charges against high-level officials in Ohio and Illinois, and then turns to consider how the theories of prosecution in these cases might be viewed in light of court decisions in other public corruption cases. We conclude with some observations about the outer limits of federal public corruption prosecutions.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.