public corruption trials frank montalvo u.s . district judge texas
DESCRIPTION
PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO U.S . District Judge Texas. Public Corruption : Intolerable at any level. A problem in the U.S. as well. 8 national priorities in prosecutions Three are directed to national security Five are directed to domestic issues. Domestic Priorities. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS
FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Texas
Public CorruptionIntolerable at any level
A problem in the US as well
8 national priorities in prosecutions
Three are directed to national security
Five are directed to domestic issues
Domestic Priorities
1) Public Corruption2) Civil Rights3) White Collar Crimes4) Organized Crime5) Violent Crimes and Major Theft
A lot of work
FBI has about 2500 on-going investigations of public corruption
Between 2006 and 2008 there were approximately 1800 convictions involving public corruption offenses
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Public CorruptionIntolerable at any level
A problem in the US as well
8 national priorities in prosecutions
Three are directed to national security
Five are directed to domestic issues
Domestic Priorities
1) Public Corruption2) Civil Rights3) White Collar Crimes4) Organized Crime5) Violent Crimes and Major Theft
A lot of work
FBI has about 2500 on-going investigations of public corruption
Between 2006 and 2008 there were approximately 1800 convictions involving public corruption offenses
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
A problem in the US as well
8 national priorities in prosecutions
Three are directed to national security
Five are directed to domestic issues
Domestic Priorities
1) Public Corruption2) Civil Rights3) White Collar Crimes4) Organized Crime5) Violent Crimes and Major Theft
A lot of work
FBI has about 2500 on-going investigations of public corruption
Between 2006 and 2008 there were approximately 1800 convictions involving public corruption offenses
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Domestic Priorities
1) Public Corruption2) Civil Rights3) White Collar Crimes4) Organized Crime5) Violent Crimes and Major Theft
A lot of work
FBI has about 2500 on-going investigations of public corruption
Between 2006 and 2008 there were approximately 1800 convictions involving public corruption offenses
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
A lot of work
FBI has about 2500 on-going investigations of public corruption
Between 2006 and 2008 there were approximately 1800 convictions involving public corruption offenses
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
CHALLENGES Sophisticated
methods used to cover-up the corrupt actions
Direct evidence often requires covert electronically recorded conversations or videotape
Lengthy investigations
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Evaluating the evidence Specific intent is not
always easy to discern
The corrupt actions must be undertaken knowingly
The evidence of corrupt actions or a scheme is often circumstantial
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or heardhellip
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Circumstantial evidence
More often evidence is of a chain of events and circumstances indicating something is or is not a fact
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
How is the evidence direct or circumstantial weighed and evaluated
Is it through an objective standard or through a subjective standard
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Evaluating evidence
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
Evidence pertaining to each element of offense is identified
Only evidence presented at trial is considered
Each witnessrsquo credibility is carefully evaluated
Generalized evaluation
Also considers matters not presented at trial
Guides itself through sympathy bias or prejudice
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Evaluating witness testimony
Three fundamental questions 1) Who is the witness2) What is the witness testifying about--his connection to the case3) Why should the witness be believed--any part(s) of testimony not trustworthy or credible
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Elements of evaluation
1 Did the witness appear honest -way the witness answer question
-the physical demeanor 2 Did the witness have a motive to lie3 Did the witness have a personal interest
in the outcome of the case4 Does the witness have a relationship
with prosecutor or the defendant
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Elements of evaluation
5 Did the witness appear to understand the questions he was asked
6 Did the witness answer the specific question he was asked
7 How is this witness different from other witnessesrsquo testimony
8 Has the witness made contradictory statements about the same facts
9 Has the witness said or done things that affect his credibility
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Hypothetical A non elected government official for the
Thailand-Texas Railroad Commission (TTRC a fictitious entity) is responsible for ensuring that companies that supply train parts comply with contract specifications His title is Quality Control Inspector (QCI) This TTRC official earns a low salary but his decisions are not typically subject to review by his superiors Usually on his recommendation alone the Chief Inspector will require suppliers to make expensive modifications of parts that do not precisely comply with the TTRC ldquoquality controlrdquo standards
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Hypothetical_continued El Paso Train Parts Company (EPTPC) is a
supplier to TTRC Its profits depend in large measure in TTRCrsquos acceptance of its parts without modification In order to gain favor with the QCI EPTPC sends him on various free golf trips worth thousands of bahts EPTPC did not directly or explicitly ask the QCI for anything in return for accepting the free golf trips
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Hypothetical_continued Both the QCI and the EPTPC
representative are sophisticated professionals who have worked in the train industry for many years It is well known that suppliers like TTPRC pay-off quality control inspectors
The QCI gladly accepted all the free trips and has since only reported EPTPC for a few minor quality control violations
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Bribery- Charging the offerorUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 144)
Defendant gave or offered something of value
Recipient of offer is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in official act or influence public official to commit fraud or induce public official violate lawful duty
To give offer or agree to give
Property or other benefit
To any official or assembly member
To induce act delay or omission
Contrary to functions
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Bribery- Charging the officialUSA 18 USC sect 201(B)(1) THAILAND (CPC sect 149)
Defendant receives or agrees to receive something of value
Defendant is a public official
Defendant acted with corrupt intent
Defendant scheme was designed to influence public official in public act influence public official commit fraud against US induce public official violate lawful duty
To wrongfully demand accept or agree to accept
Property or other benefit
For exercising or not exercising any of his functions whether wrongful or not
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
El Paso Train Parts Company gave or offered something of value - golf trips
The train official is a public official- someone acting for or on behalf of a government agency
Did El Paso Train Parts Company act corruptly Yes as the goal of the scheme was to receive favorable reviews when evaluating the quality of the parts
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
It does not matter that the public official did not explicitly request the golf trip because the US statute makes it illegal to accept a bribe even if it wasnrsquot demanded
The rest of the analysis regarding a bribe is the same if it is for the offeror or the public official
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
What else is needed
Subjectively it looks corrupt To objectively find a violation detailed
evidence describing the change in conduct of the official is helpful
Changes tend to be consistent with corrupt influence -- for example after the first golf trip TTRC never rejected a parts shipment from EPTPC the percentage of parts from EPTPC that were discarded by TTRC as useless increased
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Scheme Quid Pro Quo
Because corrupt intent is hard to establish through direct evidence it is essential to focus on the Quid Pro Quo
Quid Pro Quo -- ldquothis for thatrdquo What was the benefit or gain or
favor to the corrupt public official in exchange for his actions
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Gratuity charging the offeror18 USC 201(c)
Defendant gave offered or promised to give something of value
The recipient or offeree was a public official
The defendant intended that the thing of value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Gratuity charging the official18 USC 201(c)
Defendant received or agreed to receive something of value
The defendant is a public official The defendant intended that the thing of
value be given as compensation for an official act already performed or to be performed other than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
Gratuity does not require a Quid Pro Quo Gratuity can be for a past act but bribery
is always for a future act Gratuity can be for an act that would
ordinarily be done by the official preferential treatment is given to the donor by the official
Gratuity has been described as income supplementation
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Extortion- 18 USC sect1951Hobbs Act
Defendant obtained or attempted or conspired to obtain property of another
Property was obtained or would have been obtained with the other personrsquos consent
Defendant acted intentionally The property was obtained or would have been
obtained either i by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm force or violence or ii under color of law Defendantrsquos act affects interstate commerce
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Difference between bribery and extortion
In bribery both sides are voluntarily in the exchange
In extortion the official is in control- the coercive element is provided by the public office itself
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
The QCI a public official obtained golf trips which is something of value from the El Paso Train Parts Company
The trips were obtained with the El Paso Train Parts Companyrsquos consent as they provided payments for the golf trips
Was EPTPCrsquos consent obtained through fear or under color of law
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Mail Fraud and other offenses18 USC sect1341 et al
Due to the prevalent use of the mail system and the internet some of the most commonly used statues for prosecuting public corruption are the mail and wire fraud statutes
Up to 20 years in prison
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Honest Services
US 18 USC sectsect1341 1343
THAILAND (CPC sect 157)
Elected official Participates in
Scheme or Artifice involving bribes or kickbacks
Co ndashconspirators can be guilty even if not elected officials
Official Wrongfully exercises
or omits to exercise Injury of any person
or dishonestly exercises
or omits to exercise any of his functions
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
Conspiracy
Hu
Kim
Diaz
Isik
Mrs Lopez
Smith
Mr Lopez
ABX Corp
Partners in Crime
- - - - - - -- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-
iexclGRACIAS POR SU ATENCION
- PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIALS FRANK MONTALVO US District Judge Te
- Public Corruption Intolerable at any level
- A problem in the US as well
- Domestic Priorities
- A lot of work
- CHALLENGES
- Evaluating the evidence
- Direct evidence it is rarely the case that someone saw or hear
- Circumstantial evidence
- Slide 10
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating witness testimony
- Elements of evaluation
- Elements of evaluation (2)
- Bribery-Extortion-Gratuities
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Bribery- Charging the offeror
- Bribery- Charging the official
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the offeror
- Analyzing the hypothetical-applying it to the official
- What else is needed
- Scheme Quid Pro Quo
- Gratuity charging the offeror 18 USC 201(c)
- Gratuity charging the official 18 USC 201(c)
- Difference between Gratuity and Bribe
- Extortion- 18 USC sect1951 Hobbs Act
- Difference between bribery and extortion
- Did the QCI extort the golf trips from EPTPC
- Mail Fraud and other offenses 18 USC sect1341 et al
- Honest Services
- Conspiracy
- Slide 34
-