Archive
Please remember to use your browser's REFRESH button to
ensure you are veiwing the most recent version of the web page.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ALPHONSO MICHAEL ESPY, Defendant. Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU) UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1 THROUGH 7 AND COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12 OF THE INDICTMENT FOR FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE
OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
DONALD C. SMALTZ
In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Phone: (703)
706-0010
Fax:
(703) 706-0076
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No. TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES
iii I.
INTRODUCTION
1 II.
ALLEGATIONS OF INDICTMENT: HONEST
SERVICES
FRAUD 3
A.
DEFENDANTS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
4
B.
THE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS BREACHED BY
DEFENDANT 4
1.
Solicitation And Acceptance Of Things Of Vaule From Regulated Entities 5
2.
Defendants Concealment Of Gratuities From The Public 6
3.
Defendants False Pretenses Regarding The Purposes Of Certain Travel
7
4.
Defendants False Denials To Investigators 8
5.
Defendants Efforts To Disguise His Intent In Receiving Gratuities 9
6.
Defendants Lies To Office Of The President Of The
United States
10
7.
Defendants Use Of Government Funds For Personal
Benefit 11 III. ARGUMENT
12
A.
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR TESTING ALLEGATIONS
OF INDICTMENT
12
B.
THE INDICTMENT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES AN HONEST
SERVICES SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
13
1.
The Allegations Of The Indictment Must Be Viewed As
A Whole
14
2.
There Is No Requirement That A Quid Pro Quo Be
Alleged 16
3.
A Public Official Who Conceals Material Information Commits Honest Services
Fraud -- Holzer 19
4.
Rabbit Is Factually And Legally Distinguishable 24
5.
Sawyer, While Instructive, Did Not Deal With Pleading Requirements 26
6.
The Czubinski and McNeive Cases Are Legally And Factually
Inapposite
30
7.
The Indictment Properly Charges The Requisite Fraudulent Intent 33 IV. CONCLUSION
34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
Page No. McNally v.
United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (1987)
21 *United Sates v.
Barber, 668 F.2d 778 (4th Cir. 1982) 18,
19 United States v.
Bohonus, 628 F.2d 1167 (9th Cir. 1980)
33 United States v.
Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976)
32 United States v.
Brumley, 116 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3204 (U.S. Sept. 15, 1997)
(No. 97-486).
25 United States v.
Bush, 522 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1975)
32 United States v.
Conlon, 628 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 12,
13 United States v.
Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 1997)
26, 30, 31 United States v.
Diggs, 613 F.2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
17 United States v.
Feldman, 711 F.2d 758 (7th Cir. 1983) 15 United States v.
Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299 (6th Cir. 1986) 21 United States v.
Gray, 790 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir. 1986), rev'd sub nom. McNally v. United States, 483
U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (1987) 32 *United States v.
Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1987), vacated in light of McNally, 484 U.S. 807, 108 S.Ct. 53 (1987) 1, 21-23, 25, 34 United States v.
Keane, 522 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1975)
15, 17, 19 United States v.
Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 13, 17 United States v.
Lovett, 811 F.2 979 (7th Cir. 1987)
17 United States v.
Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.), aff'd, 602 F.2d 653 (1979) (en banc) 17 United States v.
McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245 (8th Cir. 1976)
26, 31, 32 United States v.
Mississippi Valley Generating Co.,
364 U.S. 520, 81 S.Ct. 294 (1961)
21 United States v.
Newman, 664 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1981)
17 United States v.
Rabbit, 583 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1978) 24 United States v.
ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961 (4th Cir. 1995) 19 United States v.
Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1996)
16, 21, 26-30 *United States v.
Silvano, 812 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1987) 1,
16, 17 United States v.
Sun-Diamond Growers of California, CR
96-0193 (RMU) (D.D.C. 1997) (Transcript of Sentence)
3 United States v.
Sun-Diamond Growers, 964 F.Supp. 486 (D.D.C. 1997)
13 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 1001 2, 20 18 U.S.C. § 1346 1, passim 18 U.S.C. § 1512 2 18 U.S.C. § 201 2, 5, 24 21 U.S.C. § 622 2, 5, 24 5 U.S.C. § 7353 2, 5, 25 OTHER MATERIALS 134 Cong. Rec.
S17,360-02 (daily ed. Nov. 10, 1988)
21 George D. Brown, Should
Federalism Shield Corruption? -- Mail Fraud, State Law and Post-Lopez Analysis, 82
Cornell L. Rev. 225
31 I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant's contention that eleven of the twelve honest services fraud counts
should be dismissed because the indictment "fails to charge that [defendant] Espy
engaged in any conduct with specific intent to alter his official acts as a result of the
alleged gratuities,"[1]("Def.'s Mem.") at 9. reveals not only a fundamental misunderstanding about
the pleading and proof requirements for a § 1346 prosecution, but also a contrived
reading of selected portions of the charging allegations of the indictment.
Contrary to defendants assertion, honest services fraud -- for
pleading or proof purposes -- is not limited to cases involving a quid
pro quo. Rather, honest services fraud
also includes the intentional failure of a public official to disclose material
information, United States v. Silvano, 812 F.2d 754, 759 (1st Cir. 1987) as well as
the acceptance of numerous gratuities coupled with diverse active efforts of concealment, United
States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1987), vacated in light of McNally,
484 U.S. 807, 108 S.Ct. 53 (1987). Defendant
attempts to disconnect and disregard various of the seven component elements of the scheme
alleged. However, the indictment, when read
as a whole (as it must be), charges defendant, a senior federal public official, with
honest services fraud -- however defined. The
defendants fraud in the case at bar, according to the indictment, has seven
component parts: (i) engaging in a pattern of soliciting and accepting gratuities
from persons and entities who were regulated by and/or had matters pending before his
office; (ii) concealing his receipt of things of value by not reporting them on the
required public Financial Disclosure Reports; (iii) making false pretenses for the
purpose of justifying official travel to obtain the gratuities; (iv) concealing his
activities concerning the receipt of gratuities by lying to federal investigators and
providing them with a false and altered document; (v) mailing "reimbursements"
of certain gratuities uncovered by the press to make his actions appear benign and
disguise his intent in soliciting and accepting the gratuities; (vi) lying to the Office
of the President about the extent of gratuities received; and (vii) misusing
government assets and causing the expenditure of public funds for his personal benefit. The indictment alleges that each of these seven
component parts of the scheme was in express derogation and in violation of a host of
criminal statutes, including, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1)(B), 1001,
1512(b)(2)(A) and (B), 21 U.S.C. § 622, and civil statute
5 U.S.C. § 7353.
The indictment, for the reasons explained below, sufficiently charges an honest
services scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 1346. II. ALLEGATIONS OF INDICTMENT: HONEST SERVICES FRAUD
The indictment charges defendant with honest services fraud counts 1 through 12 in
the following particulars: On or about
December 24, 1992, the President-Elect of the United States announced defendant Alphonso
Michael Espy (hereinafter "defendant") as his selection for Secretary of the
United States Department of Agriculture (hereinafter "USDA"). (Indictment ¶ 2). Confirmed by the United States Senate, defendant
served in this position from January 22, 1993 until December 31, 1994. (Id.)
While serving as USDA Secretary, defendant wielded an extraordinary amount of
discretionary power over those persons, firms, and entities who did business with or were
regulated by USDA.[2]
A.
DEFENDANTS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
Upon selection as Secretary of Agriculture, defendant took on fiduciary obligations
to the United States, its citizens, the President and the USDA. This obligation imposed upon defendant the duty
to perform his job free from deceit, fraud, dishonesty and self-enrichment, the duty to
obey criminal and civil laws and regulations, the duty to neither solicit nor accept
things of value from persons or entities with business pending before or regulated by the
USDA, and the duty to disclose to the government and the public material information as
required. (Id. at ¶ 4). B.
THE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS BREACHED BY DEFENDANT
The rights of the United States, its citizens, the officials of the Executive
Office of the President, and the USDA that were contravened by this scheme included, among
others, (i) their right to defendant's conscientious, loyal, faithful, disinterested
services, actions, and performance of his official duties free from dishonesty, deceit,
official misconduct, willful omission and fraud; (ii) their right to have defendant
conduct his official duties in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, free
from his receipt of gifts and gratuities from persons and entities doing business with,
regulated by, or having interests that could be substantially affected by, the USDA; (iii)
their right to not have the defendant use government assets and expend public funds for
his personal benefit; (iv) their right to accurate and complete personal financial
information disclosed by defendant as required by law and regulation; and (v) their right
to truthful and complete responses from defendant when inquiries were made by federal
investigators and representatives of the Office of the President. (Id. ¶6).
1.
Solicitation And Acceptance Of Things Of Value
From Regulated Entities
Within weeks of being selected as the President-Elect's choice for Secretary of
Agriculture, defendant Espy began soliciting and accepting things of value from
individuals and entities with business before, regulated by and seeking official action by
the USDA in violation of numerous federal statutes including 5 U.S.C. § 7353, 18
U.S.C. § 201, and 21 U.S.C. § 622. (Id.
at ¶ 7-9). The gratuities solicited and
accepted by defendant included, inter alia, an all expenses paid weekend party in
Russellville, Arkansas on May 14-16, 1993 from Tyson Foods, Inc.; round trip air
transportation for his girlfriend and two tickets to Tyson Foods skybox for the
January 15, 1994 NFL National Conference Championship in Dallas, Texas from Tyson Foods,
Inc.; two tickets to the June 16, 1993 NBA Championship game in Chicago from Quaker Oats;
two tickets to the September 11-12, 1993 U.S. Open Tennis Tournament in New York from
Sun-Diamond Growers of California and Richard Douglas; five tickets to the January 30,
1994 NFL Super Bowl in Atlanta, Georgia -- one from Oglethorpe Power Corp. and its agents,
and four from Fernbank, Inc.; and, in addition, numerous other items including luggage, a
crystal bowl, four seats at the 1993 Presidential Inaugural Dinner, other sporting event
tickets, employment for his girlfriend, limousine services, cash and contributions to his
brother's failed congressional campaign. (Id.
¶ 9). Over the course of a fifteen month
period, defendant solicited and accepted 18 gratuities from six entities and/or their
agents totaling an approximate value in excess of $35,000.
(Id.). Each of these gratuities was
solicited and received by defendant in violation of the laws and regulations of the United
States and in detriment to the interests of the American public.
2.
Defendants Concealment Of Gratuities From The Public
Defendant hid his receipt of gratuities from public scrutiny by not identifying
those he was obligated by law to disclose on a public financial report. As a high-ranking Executive Branch official,
defendant was required by law and regulation to fully and accurately publicly disclose his
personal financial interests through a Public Financial Disclosure Report SF-278. (Id. ¶10).
This report specifically required disclosure of, among other things, all gifts
aggregating $250 or more in value from any one source. (Id.) Despite this obligation to disclose, defendant
omitted from his financial disclosure report for the 1993 calendar year $9,561 in
gratuities, gifts and things of value and from his financial disclosure report for the
1994 calendar year $3,191 in gratuities, gifts and things of value. (Id.)
3.
Defendants False Pretenses Regarding The
Purposes Of Certain Travel
Defendant's efforts to conceal his receipt of gratuities were not simply limited to
non-disclosure on reports, but included his making false representations and pretenses to
USDA personnel regarding the purpose of his travel and the necessity of his attendance in
his official capacity at certain functions. (Id.
¶11). Thus, to justify his travel to
and presence at the Tyson complex in Russellville, defendant accepted an invitation to
speak in his official capacity to the Arkansas Poultry Federation, while in truth
defendant went to Russellville to attend the weekend party as a guest of Tyson Foods. (Id.) To justify his presence in Dallas where he
attended the 1994 NFL National Conference Championship, defendant arranged to meet with a
local agent of the USDA Office of Inspector General.
(Id.) And after being advised
that there was no official USDA events scheduled for the 1994 Super Bowl in Atlanta,
defendant caused his staff to schedule and attempt to schedule various official USDA
meetings in Atlanta the weekend of the game so as to justify his travel to Atlanta and his
attendance at the Super Bowl. (Id.)
4.
Defendants False Denials To Investigators
After the press publicly reported some of defendants criminal acts in March
1994, defendants efforts at further concealment included lying to federal
investigators on multiple occasions and to officials of the Executive Office of the
President. (Id. ¶12). Defendant, on April 1, 1994, in response to
questioning by Special Agents of the USDA Office of Inspector General, concealed the fact
that he and his girlfriend were, in May 1993, at the Tyson complex as guests of Tyson
Foods for a weekend birthday party, complete with lodging, food, drink and professional
musical entertainment, and lied about why he returned to Washington, D.C. on a Tyson
Foods' jet. (Id.). During this interview, the agents asked defendant
to provide a copy of his itinerary for the weekend of January 15-16, 1994 to Dallas,
Texas. (Id.). Defendant, in response, produced an altered travel
itinerary which deleted all references to defendant's girlfriend, the Chairman of Tyson
Foods, limousine service provided by Tyson Foods, and the NFL National Conference
Championship game which defendant and his girlfriend attended as guests of Tyson Foods. (Id.)
About eight weeks later, on June 1, 1994,
defendant falsely stated to FBI Agents that he attended the 1993 NBA Championship playoffs
in Chicago with a ticket provided by Richard Douglas when defendant had solicited and
obtained the two tickets from the Chairman of Quaker Oats Co., an entity regulated by
USDA. (Id.) Defendant further lied to the Agents when he
stated that he could not recall any time when he accepted favors, benefits or other gifts
from any organizations or companies other than Tyson Foods, when in fact he had received
things of value from Sun-Diamond Growers and Richard Douglas totaling approximately
$20,400; Smith Barney totaling $2,200; Quaker Oats Co. totaling $90; Fernbank Mississippi
totaling $850; and from EOP. (Id.).
5.
Defendants Efforts To Disguise His Intent In
Receiving Gratuities
As the acceptance of particular gifts and gratuities became known to the public and
the authorities, defendant attempted to conceal the true extent of his scheme and the true
nature of his activity by attempting to make his intent appear benign. (Id. ¶ 13). In an effort to disguise his intent to accept
illegal gratuities and conceal his prior concealment efforts, defendant issued and mailed
"reimbursement" checks to individuals who had provided him with gifts and
gratuities. (Id). Thus, on March 18,
1994, the day after the Wall Street Journal published an article revealing, inter
alia, defendant's acceptance of tickets to the January 16, 1994 NFL National
Conference Championship game from Tyson Foods, defendant issued a $68 check to the
Chairman of Tyson Foods. (Id.). On
June 2, 1994, the day after FBI agents questioned defendant about his travel to
Russellville as a guest of Tyson Foods, defendant issued a $69 check to the Arkansas
Poultry Federation for lodging at the Tyson complex on May 15, 1993. (Id.). On August 25, 1994, defendant issued a $90 check
to the Chairman of Quaker Oats for the two tickets to the June 18, 1993 NBA Championship
game in Chicago after press reports on August 7, 1994 stated that Quaker Oats provided the
tickets used by defendant and Douglas. (Id.). Shortly after the appointment of the Independent
Counsel on September 9, 1994 to investigate, inter alia, whether defendant accepted
gratuities and gifts including tickets to sporting events, defendant on September 14, 1994
made payment of $700 to a Trustee of Fernbank for four tickets to the January 30, 1994
Super Bowl.
6.
Defendants Lies To Office Of The President Of
The United States
On September 30, 1994, in response to questions by the Chief of Staff of the
President of the United States concerning whether Espy had told the Office of the
President about all gratuities he received, defendant stated in substance theres
nothing else out there," (Id. ¶ 12) when in fact he knew he had received
and not disclosed to the Chief of Staff gratuities and things of value from Sun-Diamond
and Richard Douglas totaling approximately $20,400; tickets to a Presidential Inaugural
Dinner totaling approximately $6,000 from Tyson Foods, Inc.; and lodging, meals, and
entertainment at Tyson Management Center totaling approximately $1,726; an airplane ticket
for his girlfriend so she could meet him at the Dallas Cowboys / Green Bay Packers playoff
game totaling approximately $1,000 from Jack Williams, a lobbyist for Tyson Foods, Inc.;
and a Superbowl ticket valued at $2,200 from Smith Barney.
(Id.)
7.
Defendants Use Of Government Funds For Personal Benefit
Additionally, as part of the honest services fraud, defendant, as
Secretary of Agriculture, diverted and misused government assets for his personal use
rather than in the best interests of the public. On
or about January 22, 1993, defendant requested that the USDA assume the lease payments on
a Jeep Cherokee he had leased before becoming Secretary of Agriculture. (Id. ¶14).
Entitled to a USDA-leased limousine and a USDA driver for official uses as
Secretary, defendant falsely represented to USDA officials that he would use the Jeep
Cherokee in the Washington, D.C. area as his official automobile, eliminating the
necessity for the USDA to supply him with a limousine and driver. (Id.). Relying on these representations, the USDA agreed
and assumed the lease payments for the period of February 1993 - September 1993. (Id.). However, contrary to these representations, (1) defendant kept the vehicle in his home state
of Mississippi through in or about November 1993 where he used it for his personal use,
and (2) on or about April 5, 1993 and continuing through on or about December 31,
1994, defendant requested and used a USDA limousine and driver in Washington, D.C. (Id.). By check dated September 15, 1994, seven days
after appointment of Independent Counsel, defendant made payment of $6,204 to the USDA for
his personal use of this Jeep Cherokee leased by the USDA. (Id.). III. ARGUMENT A.
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR TESTING ALLEGATIONS
OF INDICTMENT
An indictment is sufficient if it clearly informs the defendant of the precise
offense for which he is accused so that he may prepare his defense. United States v. Conlon, 628 F.2d 150, 155
(D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S.Ct.
1038, 1046-47 (1962) and United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 377-78, 74 S.Ct.
113, 115-16 (1953)). The general rule is that
the indictment must state the essential elements of the offense and be supplemented with
enough detail to apprise the accused of the particular offense with which he is charged. Id.
The elements of a violation of the mail or wire fraud statute are (1) a scheme to
defraud, and (2) use of a wire or the mails
to further that scheme. United States v.
Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1334-35 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing cases). The government need neither prove nor allege that
the scheme was ultimately successful or that the intended victim actually suffered an
injury. United States v. Sun-Diamond
Growers of California, 964 F.Supp. 486, 492 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing United States v.
Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). B.
THE INDICTMENT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES AN HONEST SERVICES SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
The indictment fails to allege an honest services scheme to defraud recognizable
under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, according to defendant, because the indictment fails to
allege that Mr. Espy engaged in any official act . . . in exchange for
the . . . gratuities or otherwise failed to render honest
services as Secretary of Agriculture or that he had any specific intent to do
so. (Def.'s Mem. at 1) (emphasis
added). Although these three assertions are
written in the disjunctive, the arguments ultimate conclusion is that, since the
indictment does not allege a quid pro quo for the gratuities, it fails to
allege honest services fraud. (Defs
Mem. at 9).
Defendant's argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the scheme alleged
in the indictment and of the factual and legal requirements of a scheme to defraud the
citizens of their right to honest governmental services, and is without merit.
1.
The Allegations Of The Indictment Must Be Viewed
As A Whole
As an initial matter, defendant, for the purposes of his motions, segments the
scheme charged (and doesnt even acknowledge -- let alone mention -- five
of the 7 component elements of the scheme). Defendant
addresses only "the mere violation of a gratuity statute" (Id. at 5), and
the cover up . . . through reimbursement in Counts 9-12, (Id.
at 6), asserting that these acts, standing alone, are not actionable under the mail
fraud statute. He does not, however, even
attempt to argue that his other actions involved in the scheme -- his pattern
of soliciting and receiving gratuities, his failure to disclose these gratuities on his
public financial disclosure form in direct contravention of law, his other acts of
concealment including lying to investigators and representatives of the President, or his
misuse of government funds -- do not constitute an honest services scheme. Yet these items that defendant omits to address
are essential components of the scheme alleged.
Defendants crabbed and myopic reading violates the well-settled rule that a
scheme is not to be reviewed by its component parts but rather as a whole. United States v. Feldman, 711 F.2d 758, 764
(7th Cir. 1983) ("Not all aspects of a scheme need be illegal if considered
separately; rather, it is sufficient that the scheme as a whole involves fraudulent
conduct."); United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534, 544 (7th Cir. 1975) (same). Thus, whether or not an act of nondisclosure by
itself or acceptance of a single gratuity by itself can amount to honest services fraud is
irrelevant. The question before this Court is
whether the scheme charged in this indictment, when viewed in its entirety, alleges
a scheme to defraud under § 1346.
The indictment alleges that defendant engaged in a pattern of: (i) illegally
soliciting and accepting gratuities from persons and entities who were regulated by and
had matters pending before his office; (ii) concealing his receipt of the gratuities
and not reporting them on the required public financial disclosure reports;
(iii) making false pretenses for the purpose of his travel to accept certain
gratuities; (iv) concealing his activities concerning the receipt of gratuities by
lying to investigators regarding his actions; (v) mailing reimbursements
of certain gratuities to disguise his intent and make his acceptance appear benign;
(vi) lying to the Office of the President about the extent of gratuities he
received; and (vii) misusing government property for personal benefit -- all
in violation of the laws and regulations of the United States and in detriment to the
interests of the public.[3] Viewing the scheme as the whole of its seven
component parts, an analysis of the case law cited by defendant, in fact, supports the
legal sufficiency and the validity of the scheme, as charged in the indictment.
2.
There Is No Requirement That A Quid Pro Quo Be Alleged
Defendant's argument that a quid pro quo or selling of office must be
alleged in the indictment is simply wrong and has no case support whatsoever. A "scheme to defraud" as used in the
mail fraud statute is a plan to deprive another of money, property, or the right to honest
services through the use of deceit. United
States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 732 (1st Cir. 1996).
Public officials act as "trustee[s] for the citizens and the State . . .
and thus owe[] the normal fiduciary duties of a trustee, e.g., honesty and loyalty
to them." Silvano, 812 at 759
(quoting United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347, 1363 (4th Cir.), aff'd in
relevant part, 602 F.2d 653 (1979) (en banc)). Out
of this fiduciary relationship flows an affirmative duty on the part of government
officials to disclose material information of which they have knowledge. Id. While,
as defendant points out, not every breach of fiduciary duty or every instance of dishonest
or disloyal conduct by a government official violates the mail fraud statute, an
official's breach of a fiduciary duty is actionable under that statute when it encompasses
an intentional breach of a duty to disclose material information. Id;[4]
cf. United States v. Lemire, 702 F.2d 1327, 1337 & n.13 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
(holding in the private sector, failure to disclose material information not actionable
under mail fraud statute without proof that such failure poses an identifiable harm, apart
from the breach itself, to employer but noting without deciding that in public sector,
mere failure to disclose may be enough). While
many cases finding an honest services fraud often involve government officials
accepting bribes or voting on matters in which they have a personal interest, these cases
neither establish a bright line test for, nor create an exhaustive list of actions that
constitute the fraudulent deprivation of honest government services -- nor could they. Cf. United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997,
n.48 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("The law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is
as old as falsehood and as versable [sic] as human ingenuity.") (quoting Weiss v.
United States, 122 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1941)).
In United Sates v. Barber, 668 F.2d 778 (4th Cir. 1982), the defendant was
the Commissioner of a state Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, which held a monopoly
on alcoholic beverage sales in that state. Id.
at 780-81. Through his position, defendant
(1) manipulated a "withdrawal system" and a "breakage system" to
obtain free liquor for himself and others at the knowing expense of the liquor companies
(not the state) by submitting to them false documentation and (2) solicited and accepted
cash payments from certain of these liquor companies.[5] Id. at 781, 783. The evidence presented at trial revealed that the
defendant did not provide official favors to the liquor companies in exchange for these
items.[6]
Id. at 783. Affirming the
defendant's mail fraud conviction based, in part, on an honest government services theory,
the court noted that "[t]he public, with a strong interest in upstanding conduct in
the affairs of state enterprise, and frustrated of opportunities to monitor those affairs
because of the falsity employed, was also deceived by the utilization of forms disguising
the true nature of the breakage and the withdrawals." Id. at 785.
Thus, the defendant defrauded the state and its citizens of their right to honest
and faithful government. Id.
As the cases cited above demonstrate,
there is no legal requirement that an indictment include the allegation that an official
sold his office, and it certainly is not a requirement to properly state a § 1346
offense.[7]
3.
A Public Official Who Conceals Material
Information Commits Honest Services Fraud -- Holzer
Federal Executive officials who receive things of value during their time in office
have a statutory obligation to truthfully disclose them pursuant to the requirements of
the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (Disclosure Report),
which provides on its face: Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 . . . requires the reporting of this information [on form SF
278]. This information [is] reviewed by
Government officials to determine compliance with
applicable Federal laws and regulations . . . The rationale for the officials obligation to
report things of value received is, in part, to report possible conflicts of interest
violations and allow the supervising agency to take appropriate action. According to the Disclosure Report: A basic premise of the statutory financial disclosure
requirements is that those having responsibility for review of
reports . . . must be given sufficient information by reporting
individuals concerning the nature of their outside interests and activities so that an
informed judgment can be made with respect to compliance with applicable conflict of
interest laws and standards of conduct regulations. . . . This
report . . . provides a mechanism for determining actual or potential
conflicts between [the officials] public responsibilities and [their] private
interests and activities and allows [the] agency to fashion appropriate protections
against such conflicts when they first appear.
After having taken things of value from a regulated entity, when an official
refuses to supply the information required and/or lies to federal investigative agencies
about the nature and extent of what he receives, he not only conceals the fact of the
receipt and value of his felonious goodies in plain violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- he also conceals the fact of a conflict and
precludes his agency from fashioning appropriate remedies.
The resulting conflicts of interest are destructive to public confidence in
government. As the Supreme Court observed
concerning a sister conflict of interest statute: The [conflict of interest] statute is directed at an end
which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only
if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered
where high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicion of
malfeasance and corruption. United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562, 81 S.Ct. 294, 315 (1961). And, the same suspicions of malfeasance and
corruption are equally applicable to the gratuities statute, since [t]he purpose of
Section 201[(c)] is to reach all situations in which a government agents judgment
concerning his official duties may be clouded by the receipt of an item of value given to
him by reason of his position. United
States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304 (6th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
A factually-analogous case to the one at bar is United States v. Holzer, 816
F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1987), vacated in light of McNally, 484 U.S. 807, 108 S.Ct. 53 (1987).[8] In Holzer, a county judge repeatedly
solicited and accepted money from attorneys who had matters pending before him. Id. at 305-07. The advances although disguised as
"loans," were not repaid by the defendant.
Id. An Illinois state rule
required each circuit judge to file an annual ethics statement listing creditors to whom
the filing judge owed over $1,000 and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. Id. at 307. Until defendant became aware
that he was under investigation for his acts, he disclosed none of the attorneys from whom
he had "borrowed" money. Id. Furthermore, in response to questionnaires
submitted by a citizens' group when Holzer was running for election on two occasions,
defendant stated that he had accepted "no gifts at all" and "absolutely no
contributions, gifts, or favors of any kind at any time." Id. Judge
Posner writing for the Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction for mail fraud
explaining:
Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is one of the
meanings that fraud bears in the statute see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163,
168 (7th Cir. 1985) -- includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a
setting of fiduciary obligation. A public
official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the
litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from
them he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is
busily soliciting loans from counsel to one
party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing
material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.
Second, the systematic and long-continued receipt of bribes by a public official,
coupled with active efforts to conceal the bribe-taking from the public and the
authorities (as in Holzers [financial disclosure] filings and his response to
voter questionnaires) is fraud (again in its elementary sense of deceit, and quite
possibly in other senses as well), even if it is the public rather than counsel that is
being kept in the dark. It is irrelevant
that, so far as appears, Holzer never ruled differently in a case because of a lawyer's
willingness or unwillingness to make him a loan, so that his conduct caused no
demonstrable loss either to a litigant or to the public at large. See, e.g., United States v. Keane,
522 F.2d 534, 541, 546 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Lovett, 811 F.2d 979, 985
(7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834, 846 (2d Cir. 1939). How can anyone prove how a judge would have ruled
if he had not been bribed?
Id.
at 307, 308. Judge Posner emphasized that
whether the defendant altered his position on an official ruling was
"irrelevant," but that the fraud perpetrated by the defendant was accepting
money in contravention of state law and concealing that action.[9]
Id. at 308.
4.
Rabbit Is Factually And Legally Distinguishable
In United States v. Rabbit, 583 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1978), upon which
defendant relies, an elected member of the Missouri State House of Representatives
secretly accepted a ten percent commission on architectural contracts awarded to a firm he
recommended to persons authorized to award government contracts. Id., 583 F.2d at 1025. The Eight Circuit reversed the defendant's mail
fraud conviction because (1) there was no evidence of a tangible loss to the public, (2)
the court was not satisfied that his conduct deprived the citizens of their right to
honesty and fairness in the conduct of his official duties because Rabbit did not control
the awarding of state contracts to architects, and (3) the government failed to identify
any law or regulation placing an affirmative duty on Rabbit to disclose his interest in
the contracts and thus, he did not deprive the citizens of any right to disclosure. Id. at 1026.
Unlike the defendant in Rabbit, defendant Espy was a high-ranking government
official possessing great discretionary power, engaged in a pattern of soliciting and
accepting money from persons and entities with matters pending before his office, in
direct contravention of both criminal (18 U.S.C. § 201, 21 U.S.C. § 622) and
civil (5 U.S.C. § 7353) statutes.[10] He, unlike Rabbit, had a duty not only not to
accept things of value but also to disclose the things he took. Instead defendant Espy then took active efforts to
conceal this activity from the public and from the authorities by filing false financial
disclosure reports mandated by statute and by lying to investigators when questioned about
such activity.[11] The indictment here, unlike the Rabbit indictment,
specifically identifies applicable laws, regulations, and standards of conduct which
clearly required defendant to honestly and accurately provide information concerning his
financial interests and activities to the United States, its citizens, the Executive
Office of the President, the USDA and their agents. (See
Indictment at ¶ 4, 6, 10, 26-46). In the
context of this case, Rabbit lends no support to defendants assertions.
5.
Sawyer, While Instructive, Did Not Deal With Pleading Requirements
Under the heading Violation of a Gratuity Statute Does Not Constitute Honest
Services Fraud defendant cites and relies upon United States v. Sawyer, 85
F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1996), United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 1997)
and United States v. McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245 (8th Cir. 1976). However, none of these cases supports the
defendant's position that bribery or selling of office is necessary for, much less needs
to be alleged in, an honest services fraud indictment.
Sawyer held that violation of a gift statute, which prohibited appearances
of, but not actual corruption, could not form the basis for a mail fraud prosecution. Id., 85 F.3d at 728-29. It is an instructive case for a variety of
reasons, but none of those reasons relates to the allegations of an indictment; they
relate to the courts charge to the jury.
Sawyer involved the prosecution
of an insurance company lobbyist under § 1346 for providing travel, golf fees, theater
tickets and dinners to state legislators. Id.,
85 F.3d at 720-21. The Governments
theory was that these things of value caused the legislators to violate two different
Massachusetts statutes: one -- a gift statute which civilly (but not criminally)
proscribed a lobbyist from giving gifts to a legislator aggregating more than $100 per
year, and, two -- a gratuity statute which criminally proscribed anyone from
giving to a legislator, or a legislator accepting, anything of substantial
value . . . for or because of an official
act . . . performed or to be performed by that person. Id. at 725-26. Through the violation of the gift and gratuity
statutes, the Government contended Sawyer stole the legislators honest services, and
the indictment as structured required the Government to prove that Sawyer violated at
least one of the statutes at issue -- either the gift or the gratuity statute. Id. at 725.
The Circuit, after extended review, concluded the instructions were flawed because
the trial courts instructions allowed the jury to find, ipso facto, from a
violation of the gift statute that Sawyer had the intent to defraud required by
§ 1346. Id. at 730-31.
The Circuit reasoned that the gift statute was a prophylactic civil
prohibition that addressed the appearance of, but not actual corruption, and
that a violation of that civil gift statute did not necessarily entail any improper motive
to influence the official duties of the recipient. Id.
at 727-28. Therefore, not every violation of
the gift statute would necessarily amount to a deviation from the officials
performance of honest services to the public. Id.
at 728. Thus, if the Sawyer honest
services conviction was to rest on his violation of the gift statute, the Circuit required
an additional instruction to the effect that, to find Sawyer had the intent to commit
honest services fraud, the jury had to find that Sawyer intended to influence or otherwise
improperly affect the official performance of duties by the giving of these gifts,
and not merely that he intended to violate the state gift statute. Id. at 728.
Accordingly, allowing the jury to find that Sawyer intended to defraud the
public of its right to honest services based on proof of gift statute violations alone
constituted reversible error. Id. at
729, emphasis added.
Addressing the gratuities statute, the Circuit found that:
A gratuity statute violation -- unlike a gift statute violation -- may
itself be sufficient to implicate the duty of honest services in a given case. As with the gift statute, however, not every
violation of the gratuity statute automatically encompasses an intent to induce the public
official to alter or deviate from the performance of honest and impartial services . Id. at 729.
The Circuit observed that the requisite § 1346 intent might be proven by
proof that a person with a continuing and long-term interest before an official engaged in
a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to coax ongoing favorable
official action in derogation of the publics right to impartial official services,
and stated:
Here, for example, while Sawyer may not have provided the legislators with direct
kickbacks or commissions arising out of the specific official action, he may have intended
the legislators generally to treat preferentially Hancocks interests, knowing that
the free meals, entertainment, and golf would continue so long as favorable official acts
were, at some point, taken. Id.
at 730.
The Circuit held the district court also improperly instructed the jury on the
gratuity offense. Id. The Circuit found that the Massachusetts gratuity
statute (a mirror image of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)) did not require
proof that the gratuity was for a specifically-identified legislative act. Id. The
trial courts charge, however, misconstrued the gratuities statute and imposed a more
stringent standard than was required. Id. That charge was that the Government must prove
that Sawyer gave something of substantial value to a legislator with the intent to
influence an official act of that legislator. Id. While this instruction erroneously added an intent-to-influence
element to the gratuity offense, it also had the effect of sufficiently charging the jury
as to the requisite mens rea for honest services fraud if the honest services fraud
was based only on the giving of gratuities. Id. However, because the Circuit couldnt
tell whether or not the jury found that the honest services fraud was based upon the civil
violations of the gift statute or on the criminal gratuity statute; and, since the charge
relating to the former was legally insufficient, the Court reversed Sawyers
convictions and ordered a new trial. Id.
at 730-31. In its extended analysis, the Sawyer
court never addressed the issue of the sufficiency of the indictment, and nothing in Sawyer
can support defendants claim that the indictment at bar is insufficient.
6.
The Czubinski and McNeive Cases Are
Legally and Factually Inapposite
Neither Czubinski nor McNeive provides any support for defendants
assertions, as the facts of those cases are drastically inapposite, each involving
ministerial governmental employees who violated office policy (Czubinski) or
accepted a $5.00 gratuity for issuing non-discretionary plumbing permits (McNeive). Moreover, unlike the case at bar, neither case
involved any duties of disclosure and neither involved acts of concealment by the
defendant.
The defendant in Czubinski, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, was
provided access to taxpayer files on an IRS computer so that he could fulfill his duties
-- answering questions from taxpayers regarding their returns. Id., 106 F.3d at 1071. Disregarding IRS rules which prohibited employees
from accessing these files outside the course of their normal duties, the defendant used
his access to obtain confidential taxpayer information for personal reasons. Id. The
First Circuit reversed Czubinski's honest services fraud conviction finding (1) the
defendant's actions did not call into question a discretionary decision-making position,
(2) the defendant's actions amounted solely to a governmental workplace violation which
defendant had no reason to believe would be punished by anything more than termination of
his employment, and (3) there was no evidence that the defendant failed to carry out his
official tasks adequately, or intended to do so. Id.
at 1077. Moreover, no evidence suggested that
the defendant affirmatively concealed his actions or was acting in a fiduciary capacity of
any sort.
McNeive involved a city plumbing inspector with no discretionary power who
accepted unsolicited tips of $5.00 each for rubber stamping plumbing permits that issued
as a matter of course. Id., 536 F.2d
at 1246-52. The defendant made no efforts to
affirmatively conceal these tips but rather voluntarily disclosed them to the FBI during
an unrelated interview. Id. at 1247,
1252. Viewing the scheme as a whole, the
court concluded that on these facts the government had failed to prove intent to defraud
and reversed McNeive's conviction. Id.
at 1247, 1251.[12]
Defendant Espy, unlike defendants Czubinski and McNeive, was a high-ranking
senior public official with great discretionary power.
Defendant Espys continued solicitation and receipt of gratuities called into
question the disinterested judgment of his office, as did his non-disclosure on the Public
Financial Disclosure Report, SF-278, and his affirmative misrepresentations concealing
those matters from federal officials. Where,
as here, a public official acts improperly and engages in affirmative acts to conceal his
conduct from the public and the authorities (rather than simply failing to disclose his
acts) courts have unanimously found that defendant's actions to amount to a scheme to
defraud.[13]
7.
The Indictment Properly Charges The Requisite
Fraudulent Intent
Finally, defendants contention that the indictment should be dismissed
because the scheme to defraud does not allege the requisite specific intent,
(Defs Mem. At 7-8) warrants only scant mention.
The indictment at bar explicitly alleges fraudulent intent as it charges that
defendant . . . did devise, and intend to devise, a
scheme and artifice [] to defraud . . . to obtain property. Indictment at ¶ 5 (emphasis added). The only case cited by defendant for the
proposition that specific intent must be alleged in a mail fraud indictment is United
States v. Bohonus, 628 F.2d 1167 (9th Cir. 1980).
But, Bohonus held that charging that a defendant devised and intended
to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud sufficiently charges specific intent.[14] Id. at 1172-74 & nn.5,12. This conclusion follows, explained the Circuit,
because [t]he specific intent requirement is an aspect of the scheme to
defraud requirement; i.e., there is no fraudulent scheme without fraudulent
intent. Id. at 1172. The indictment at bar has the same language, i.e.,
devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud that the court
found sufficient in Bohonus and defendants argument here -- like
defendant Bohonus -- is meritless. IV. CONCLUSION
Despite defendant's assertions to the contrary, not one of the cases cited in
defendants motion to dismiss holds that honest services fraud requires
that the indictment allege that a defendant engaged in any conduct with specific
intent to alter his official acts as a result of the alleged gratuities. (Def.s
Mem. at 9). Even if there were such a case,
it would not serve to invalidate this indictment against this defendant because defendants
acceptance of gratuities is just one of seven component parts of the scheme alleged. The various disclosure obligations that were
attendant to defendants solicitation and acceptance of these numerous gratuities,
coupled with active efforts to conceal these gratuities from the public and the
authorities is fraud . . . . It is irrelevant that, so far,
it appears that [defendant] never ruled differently in a case because of a lawyers
willingness or unwillingness to make him a loan, so that his conduct caused no
demonstrable loss either to litigant or to the public at large. Holzer, 816 F.2d at 307-08.
Viewed in its entirety this complex scheme
was intended to, and did, deprive the United States, its citizens, the Officials of the
Executive Office of the President and the USDA of their right to defendant's honest
services. As such, and as the indictment
alleges each of the elements required for a conviction (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the
use of the mails and/or wire to further the scheme, defendant's motion to dismiss Counts
1-7 and 9-12 of the Indictment should be denied. Date: November 20, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
__________________________________
Donald C. Smaltz, Independent Counsel
Theodore S. Greenberg
William F. Fahey
Roscoe C. Howard
Joseph P. Guichet
103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Phone: (703) 706-0010
Fax: (703)
706-0076
United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy
Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States'
Opposition and Incorporated Memorandum to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 Through 7
and Counts 9 Through 12 of the Indictment for Failure to State an Offense was sent this
20th day of November, 1997, via messenger to the following:
Reid Weingarten, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 and via United States
mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan
65 Livingston Ave.
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Esq.
320 Hauser Hall
1575 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
____________________________
Joseph P. Guichet H:\DATA\JOEG\ESPY\PLEADING\SCHEME1.OPP
[1]Def.'s
Mem. to Dismiss Counts 1-7 and 9-12 for Failure to State Offense [2]This Court may take judicial notice that defendant
administered a budget of $65.5-billion, or 4.3 percent, of the total federal budget, and
was 9th in line for succession to the Presidency of the United States. See United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of
California, CR 96-0193 (RMU) (D.D.C. 1997) (Transcript of Sentence at 40.). [3]Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of Count 8 --
his misuse of government assets and expenditure of public funds for personal use. Yet he noticeably omits this count from his
discussion of the honest services fraud. Although
this count forms the basis for the obtainment of money and property through fraudulent
pretenses object of his scheme, it is additionally a part of his honest services object
and must be so considered. [4]See also United States v. Lovett, 811 F.2 979
(7th Cir. 1987) (affirming conviction of mayor who failed to disclose 5% interest in cable
company seeking city contract); Mandel, 591 F.2d at 1359-60 (emphasizing
non-disclosure and concealment of material information in affirming convictions of
Governor of Maryland and his associates who failed to disclose their interests in various
racetracks during dealings with Maryland Racing Commission and state legislators); Keane,
522 F.2d 534 (affirming conviction of Chicago alderman for failure to disclose interest in
properties when voting on matters affecting properties); cf. United States v. Newman,
664 F.2d 12, 19-20 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[a]n employee's breach of his fiduciary
obligations is actionable under the [mail fraud] statute when it encompasses the violation
of a duty to disclose material information to his employer.") (internal quotations
omitted). [5]Most of the liquor companies were separately convicted
on gratuity charges for these activities. Id.
at 785 & n.5. [6]The only evidence introduced at trial as to why the
liquor companies covered the defendant's withdrawals of liquor was testimony from one
company that it did so because the practice "was being done with the other distillers
and for that reason I did not want to pull out."
Id. at 783. [7]For other cases involving honest services fraud
prosecutions unrelated to an official selling his office or voting on matters in which he
has a personal interest, see United States v. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961 (4th Cir. 1995)
(affirming conviction of attorney for state Lottery Commission for using inside
information, obtained by virtue of his position, to purchase interest in company
Commission determined would get contract); Keane, 522 F.2d at 545 (city alderman's
use of inside information obtained by virtue of his official position for his own personal
gain actionable under the mail fraud statute). [8]Although the Supreme Court vacated and remanded this
opinion in light of its holding in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350,
107 S.Ct. 2875 (1987) that the mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass an honest
government services scheme to defraud, with Congress' passage the following year of 18
U.S.C. § 1346, pre-McNally jurisprudence regarding honest government services
schemes is once again authoritative. See,
e.g., Sawyer, 85 F.3d at 723-24 (" . . . § 1346 was intended to
overturn McNally and reinstate the reasoning of pre-McNally case law . .
."); see also 134 Cong. Rec. S17,360-02 (daily ed. Nov. 10, 1988) (statement
of Sen. Biden) (declaring that the "intent [of § 1346] is to reinstate all of the
pre-McNally case law pertaining to the mail and wire fraud statutes without
change.") (cited in United States v. Frost, 1997 WL 563304, *15 (6th Cir.
1997)). [9]The dissent in McNally, writing to support the
honest services fraud theory, approved of the Holzer decision and quoted the
entirety of this passage in arguing that the majority's opinion employed too narrow a view
of the term "defraud." McNally,
483 U.S. at 371-72, 107 S.Ct. at 2888 (Stevens, J., O'Connor, J., dissenting). Given Congress' passage of § 1346 and explicit
adoption of the honest services fraud theory, this dissenting opinion and the Holzer
opinion that it supported should be afforded great weight. [10]The Holzer court while "very much doubt[ing]
the soundness of [Rabbit's] reasoning," also distinguished that case on its
facts noting "Holzer received money from persons appearing before him in his official
capacity rather than from persons having business before other judges or before the
executive or legislative branches of state government." Holzer, 816 F.2d at 309. [11]These efforts to actively conceal his improper actions
particularly underscore defendant's intent to defraud and this activity alone could
suffice to allege an honest services scheme to defraud.
By filing false financial disclosure reports and lying to the public and
investigators, defendant performed his official duties in a manner intentionally
detrimental to the public to further his own personal interests. See United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728,
734 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that honest services fraud exists when an official performs
some particular service or services while conscious of the fact that those actions are
something less than in the best interests of the public or are not those that would be
rendered by a totally faithful employee), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W.
3204 (U.S. Sept. 15, 1997) (No. 97-486). [12]Honest services fraud prosecutions brought against state
officials are often met with hostility based on federalism concerns and may cause courts
to hold federal prosecutors to standards more strict than those required by the mail and
wire fraud statutes. The McNeive
opinion exemplified this position noting that "[although] tipping has no place in the
administration and operation of a government agency, . . . [such practice] does [not] give
[federal] prosecutors a license to interject themselves into local affairs to attempt to
rectify the problem." Id. at 1252. See also George D. Brown, Should
Federalism Shield Corruption? -- Mail Fraud, State Law and Post-Lopez Analysis, 82
Cornell L. Rev. 225. However, as this
prosecution involves a federal official, violating federal law, this concern is not
present in the instant matter. [13]Compare United States v. Gray, 790 F.2d 1290,
1295 (6th Cir. 1986) ("A mail fraud conviction can be supported by proof that a
fiduciary who is charged with a public trust deliberately concealed facts to personally
benefit from the actions of a public official or public entity.") rev'd sub nom.
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (1987), United States v.
Brown, 540 F.2d 364, 375 (8th Cir. 1976) (while affirming conviction of city Building
Commissioner for scheme wherein he would grant city demolition contract through conduit
company which company would pay rent on girlfriend's apartment court emphasized
defendant's affirmative acts to conceal his violation of state standards for honest and
faithful services); United States v. Bush, 522 F.2d 641, 648 (7th Cir. 1975)
(holding city Director of Public Relations' failure to disclose ownership of a company
bidding for city projects was not alone a crime under mail fraud statute but "[i]t is
only when his failure to provide honest and faithful services is combined with his
material misrepresentations to the mayor and [interested persons] and his active
concealment that an illegal fraud occurs which is cognizable under § 1341.")
with McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245, (8th Cir. 1976) (reversing conviction of city plumbing
inspector who received unsolicited $5.00 tips for performing ministerial duty where there
was no evidence defendant materially misrepresented the existence or nature of the
gratuity practice nor actively concealed his activity). [14]At issue in Bohonus was the dismissal of an
honest services scheme to defraud. The Bohonus
court reversed the district courts dismissal finding that the indictment
sufficiently stated a mail fraud offense and that the mail fraud statute was not
unconstitutionally vague. Id. at
1172-73.
|