The Supreme Court of the United States in Snyder v. U.S., 600 U.S., 144 S. Ct. 1947 (2024), has once again narrowed the scope of a federal criminal anticorruption statute and held that gratuities are not a criminal act for a state official’s past acts.
In brief, the Court held, that for a number of reasons, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) is a bribery statute and does not prohibit gratuities for past acts.
Three justices dissented.
The decision in the Snyder case continues the Supreme Court’s decisions narrowing the scope of federal anticorruption criminal statutes. See generally, Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (honest services fraud) reaches only bribery and kickback schemes; McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. 55- (2016) (court reversed the honest services fraud, Hobbs Act, and other convictions of a former Virginia governor for accepting a substantial amount of money in loans, gifts, and other benefits because these acts were not an “official act” within 18 U.S.C. § 201; Kelly v. U.S., 590 U.S., 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020), an alleged scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 666 did not aim to obtain money or property and, therefore, convictions were vacated (in this case the issue was whether employees of the New Jersey governor’s office and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated federal statutes when they caused traffic congestion at the George Washington Bridge as a means of retaliation against a New Jersey mayor); Percoco v. U.S., 598 U.S. 919, 143 S. Ct. 1130 (2023); (the Supreme Court reversed “honest services” fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 because in this case, a private citizen with influence over government decisions cannot be convicted of “honest services fraud” based upon a jury instructions that were too vague—i.e., the defendant had a “right to control” government business and people working in the government; and Ciminelli v U.S., 598 U.S. 306, 143 S. Ct. 1123 (2023); the Court reversed the convictions of Ciminelli for wire fraud because “the right to control” one’s assets is not “property” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 371.
Prosecutors and defense counsel defending cases involving state, local, and tribal officials in corruption investigations and charges should be well aware of these decisions that limit the scope of federal criminal anticorruption statutes.
