Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Theft or Bribery': The Circuit Split Over the Federal Nexus Element
When federal prosecutors encounter corrupt conduct by a state or local official, they may reach for a potentially useful tool ' Congress's attempt to prevent theft or bribery 'concerning programs receiving Federal funds,' 18 U.S.C. ' 666. In applying this statute, however, a federal prosecutor's reach must not exceed Constitutional limits on what Congress may grasp. Defining those limits has proved particularly challenging in recent years, as three circuits have inferred different Constitutional limits on ' 666's enforcement.
A defendant can violate the express terms of ' 666 without ever touching federal property. An agent of a covered entity (defined as an organization; a state, local or tribal government; or any agency thereof) that receives more than $10,000 per year in federal 'benefits' (' 666(b)), commits a federal crime if he embezzles or otherwise steals entity-controlled property (' 666(a)(1)(A)), or solicits a bribe regarding entity business (' 666(a)(1)(B)), that is valued at more than $5,000. An outsider who offers a bribe to an agent of a covered entity in connection with business involving $5000 or more likewise commits a federal crime (' 666(a)(2)).
But does the Constitution require prosecutors to prove a direct federal interest in the property stolen or the bribe paid ' and if so, what kind of showing will suffice? At the extremes, can the feds prosecute 'a bribe paid to a city's meat inspector in connection with a substantial transaction just because the city's parks department had received a federal grant of $10,000'? United States v. Santopietro, 166 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1999) (answering no). This is dangerous ground for prosecutors, and potentially fertile ground for defense attorneys, because the answer varies from circuit to circuit, and often divides appellate panels.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.