DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States John H. EVANS, Jr., Petitioner V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States John H. EVANS, Jr., Petitioner V 112 S.Ct. 1881 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411 (Cite as: 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881) Supreme Court of the United States John H. EVANS, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. No. 90-6105. Argued Dec. 9, 1991. Decided May 26, 1992. Defendant was convicted, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Horace T. Ward, J., of attempted extortion under color of official right in violation of the Hobbs Act and of subscribing to materially false federal income tax return. He appealed. The Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Circuit Judge, affirmed, 910 F.2d 790. Following grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that affirmative act of inducement by public official was not an element of offense of extortion “under color of official right” prohibited by Hobbs Act. Affirmed. Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy filed separate opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia joined. West Headnotes [1] Extortion and Threats 165 6 165 Extortion and Threats 165I Official Extortion 165k3 Elements of Offenses 165k6 k. Color of Office or Authority. Most Cited Cases Affirmative act of inducement by public official, such as a demand, was not element of offense of extortion “under color of official right” prohibited by Hobbs Act; government was only required to show that public offi- cial obtained payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that payment was made in return for official acts; overruling U.S. v. O'Grady, 742 F.2d 682; U.S. v. Aguon, 851 F.2d 1158. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951. [2] Extortion and Threats 165 6 165 Extortion and Threats 165I Official Extortion 165k3 Elements of Offenses 165k6 k. Color of Office or Authority. Most Cited Cases Offense of extortion under color of official right in violation of Hobbs Act is completed at time when public of- ficial receives payment in return for his agreement to perform specific official acts, and fulfillment of the quid pro quo is not an element of offense. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 112 S.Ct. 1881 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411 (Cite as: 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881) [3] Extortion and Threats 165 9 165 Extortion and Threats 165I Official Extortion 165k9 k. Defenses. Most Cited Cases It is not a defense to charge of extortion under color of official right in violation of Hobbs Act that defendant could also have been convicted of bribery. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951. [4] Extortion and Threats 165 6 165 Extortion and Threats 165I Official Extortion 165k3 Elements of Offenses 165k6 k. Color of Office or Authority. Most Cited Cases Affirmative step on official's part is not element of offense of extortion under color of official right in violation of Hobbs Act. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951. [5] Extortion and Threats 165 1 165 Extortion and Threats 165I Official Extortion 165k1 k. Nature of Offense in General. Most Cited Cases Common-law extortion was not limited to wrongful takings under false pretense of official right; although extor- tion accompanied by fraud was well-recognized type of extortion, there were other types as well. FN* **1882 *255 Syllabus FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. As part of an investigation of allegations of public corruption in Georgia, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent posing as a real estate developer initiated a number of conversations with petitioner Evans, an elected member of the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners. The agent sought Evans' assistance in an effort to rezone a tract of land and gave him, inter alia, $7,000 in cash, which Evans failed to report on his state cam- paign-financing disclosure form or his federal income tax return. Evans was convicted in the District Court of, among other things, extortion under the Hobbs Act, which is “the obtaining of property from another, ... induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right,” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). In affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the trial court's jury instruction did not require a finding that Evans had demanded or requested the money, or that he had conditioned the per- formance of any official act upon its receipt. However, it held that “passive acceptance of the benefit” was suffi- cient for a Hobbs Act violation if the public official knew that he was being offered the payment in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power. Held: An affirmative act of inducement by a public official, such as a demand, is not an element of the offense of extortion “under color of official right” prohibited by the Hobbs Act. Pp. 1885-1891. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 112 S.Ct. 1881 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 3 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411 (Cite as: 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881) (a) Congress is presumed to have adopted the common-law definition of extortion-which does not require that a public official make a demand or request-unless it has instructed otherwise. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 249-250, 96 L.Ed. 288. While the Act **1883 expanded the common-law definition to encompass conduct by a private individual as well as a public official, the portion of the Act referring to offi- cial misconduct continues to mirror the common-law definition. There is nothing in the sparse legislative history or the statutory text that could fairly be described as a “contrary direction,” ibid., from Congress to narrow the offense's scope. The inclusion of the word “induced” in the definition does not require that the wrongful use of official power begin with a public official. That word is part of the definition of extortion by a private individual but not by a public official, and even if it did apply to *256 a public official, it does not necessarily indicate that a transaction must be initiated by the bribe's recipient. Pp. 1885-1888. (b) Evans' criticisms of the jury instruction-that it did not properly describe the quid pro quo requirement for conviction if the jury found that the payment was a campaign contribution, and that it did not require the jury to find duress-are rejected. The instruction satisfies the quid pro quo requirement of McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307, because the offense is completed when the public official re- ceives payment in return for his agreement to perform specific official acts; fulfillment of the quid pro quo is not an element of the offense. Nor is an affirmative step on the official's part an element of the offense on which an instruction need be given. Pp. 1888-1889. (c) The conclusion herein is buttressed by the facts that many courts have interpreted the statute in the same way, and that Congress, although aware of this prevailing view, has remained silent. Pp. 1889-1890. 910 F.2d 790 (CA11 1990), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in Parts I and II of which O'CONNOR, J., joined, and in Part III of which KENNEDY, J., joined. O'CONNOR, J., post, p. 189, and KENNEDY, J., post, p. 1891, filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 1894. C. Michael Abbott, by appointment of the Court, 501 U.S. 1229, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Deputy Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, Christopher J. Wright, and Richard A. Friedman. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari, 500 U.S. 951, 111 S.Ct. 2256, 114 L.Ed.2d 709 (1991), to resolve a conflict in the Cir- cuits over the question whether an affirmative act of inducement by a public official, such as a demand, is an element of the offense of extortion “under color of official right” prohibited by the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . We agree with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that it is not, and therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. *257 I Petitioner was an elected member of the Board of Commissioners of DeKalb County, Georgia. During the period between March 1985 and October 1986, as part of an effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to in- vestigate allegations of public corruption in the Atlanta area, particularly in the area of rezonings of property, an © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 112 S.Ct. 1881 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 4 504 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dangerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The, 87 Notre Dame L
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 87 | Issue 1 Article 8 11-1-2011 Hobbs Leviathan: The aD ngerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The John S. Gawey Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation John S. Gawey, Hobbs Leviathan: The Dangerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 383 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol87/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES THE HOBBS LEVIATHAN: THE DANGEROUS BREADTH OF THE HOBBS ACT AND OTHER CORRUPTION STATUTES John S. Gawey* "[T]he more corrupt the State, the greater the number of its laws."' BACKGROUND On March 2, 1942 the Supreme Court infamously upheld the Sec- ond Circuit's reversals of extortion convictions for the Local 807 branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in United States v. Local 807 InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsters.2 For years, Local 807 routinely stopped out-of-state non-union trucks carrying large quanti- ties of merchandise as they entered New York City and demanded, sometimes violently,3 that the drivers pay regular union-fees and per- * Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2012; B.A., Letters, University of Oklahoma, 2009. Many thanks to Professor G. Robert Blakey for his advice and encouragement during the planning stages of this Note, the staff of the Notre Dame Law Review for their work during the editing process, and finally to my parents Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT to CONGRESS on THE
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 qJ J't ' Public Integrity Section CriminI Division U.S. Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 WFRODUCTION This Report to the Congress, prepared as required by Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, details the activities and operations of the Public Integrity Section and provides statistics concerning the nationwide effort against corruption for calendar year 1995. The Public Integrity Section was established in 1976. The Section was given the responsibility for overseeing the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section is also responsible for supervising the handling of investigations and prosecutions of election crimes. Its attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials, and are available as a source of advice and expertise to prosecutors and investigators. The Public Integrity Section also supervises the administration of the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. In addition, the Section serves as the Justice Department's center for the handling of issues that may arise from time to time regarding public corruption investigations and prosecutions. The Section maintains a staff of approximately 25 to 30 attorneys including experts in election law, the laws prohibiting conflicts of interest and bribery, the Independent Counsel provisions, and the statutes providing federal jurisdiction over corruption at the state and local levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond 1984: Undercover in America–Serpico to Abscam Robert Blecker New York Law School, [email protected]
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1984 Beyond 1984: Undercover in America–Serpico to Abscam Robert Blecker New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation 28 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 823 (1983-1984) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. BEYOND 1984: UNDERCOVER IN AMERICA- SERPICO TO ABSCAM ROBERT I. BLECKER PART ONE PROLOGUE ................................................. 824 SERPICO To ARCHER ........................................ 840 The Archer Trial-United States v. Sherman: Subjective versus Objective Entrapment-Judge Friendly and Federal Jurisdiction-United States v. Russell-Archer reversed-A Second Try-The New York State Archer Case-Hampton v. United States: The Government on Both Sides-Archer's Conviction Affirmed: The Technique Vindicated. ABsc m ................................................... 872 The Undercover Background-Guccione and Williams-The Coaching Incident-Meyers' Payoff-Kelly-Schwartz and Jannotti. TRIALS AND HEARINGS ...................................... 899 United States v. Jannotti: Due Process-Congressional Hearings-The Archer Stain-United States v. Meyers-United States v. Williams-A Linguistic Probe of Abscam-Jannotti on Appeal: Entrapment and Due Process-United
    [Show full text]
  • List of Articles
    List of Articles A Asbestos Boesky, Ivan A. H. Robins Asia Boland Amendment AAMCO AT&T Bond Fraud ABSCAM Australia Boycott Accounting Fraud Automobile Braithwaite, John Adelphia Communications Brazil Advance Fee Scam B Breast Implants Advertising Fraud Bad Checks Bre-X Africa Bait-and-Switch Bribery Age Discrimination Bakker, Jim and Tammy Brown Lung Agnew, Spiro T. Banco Ambrosiano Buffalo Creek Air Pollution Bank Fraud Bush, George H. W. Allied Chemical Bank of Credit and Commerce Bush, George W. Allied Irish Banks International Butcher Brothers American Civil War Bank Secrecy Act American Cyanamid Banker’s Trust C American Hospital Supply Bankruptcy Fraud Campaign Finance American Motors Barings Bank Canada American Revolution BASF Canadian Mining Scandals Ancient Mercantile Crime Baycol Capitalism Anderson, Jack Beech Aircraft Capone, Alphonse Anheuser-Busch Beech-Nut Nutrition Caribbean Islands Antitrust Bendectin Carl Karcher Enterprises Arab Nations Bendix Corporation Carnegie, Andrew Arbitrage Benson, Michael L. Carson, Rachel Archer Daniels Midland Better Business Bureaus Carter, James E. Argentina B. F. Goodrich Caveat Emptor Art Fraud Bid Rigging Celler-Kefauver Act Arthur Andersen Board of Directors Cendant xxv xxvi List of Articles Centennial Savings and Loan Cressey, Donald Federal Trade Commission Act Center for Science in the Public Crime Seriousness Felony Interest Criminal Facilitation Fertility Fraud Central America Critical Theory Fiduciary Fraud Challenger Disaster Cuba Film Recovery Systems Charity Fraud Cullen, Francis T. Financial Accounting Standards Check Kiting Currency Fraud Board Chem-Bio Cyberstalking Financial Crime Chevron Kingpin Statute China D Firestone Tires Cigarette Advertising Daisy Chains Fisher-Price Civil Forfeiture Daiwa Bank Fisse, Brent Class-Action Lawsuits Dalkon Shield Flaming Ferraris Clayton Antitrust Act Day Fines Food and Drug Administration Clean Air Act Debt Restructuring Fraud Ford Pinto Clean Water Act Defective Products Ford, Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: a System in Search of Reform
    The Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: A System in Search of Reform Kenneth A. Grosst In the wake of the savings and loan crisis, the so-called "Keating Five" scandal, and increasing disillusionment with the electoral system, campaign finance reform is once again an issue of major national concern. As has often occurred in the past,' Congress appears poised to enact major campaign reform legislation as a response to these latest political scandals. Indeed, the United States Senate passed a campaign finance reform bill in May of this year,2 and the House of Representatives is currently considering campaign finance reform legislation.' While there have been many proposals to make substantive changes to the campaign finance laws, historically, these proposals have overlooked the need to improve procedures for enforcement of these laws. If this round of reforms is to be effective, particular attention must be devoted to the enforcement provisions in light of the critical inadequacies of the current enforcement scheme. The current enforcement mechanism is flawed in three fundamental ways. First, individuals and campaigns accused of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)4 violations do not enjoy many of the due process protections available to the accused in other administrative contexts. Second, the statutory enforce- ment scheme under the FECA constrains the ability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately deter FECA violations-a daunting task in the face of entities that aggressively seek creative ways to evade the laws. Finally, despite the existence of a number of criminal statutes prohibiting elected officials from accepting campaign contributions for improper purposes, the criminal law has been of limited value in regulating campaign finance t Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Public Corruption Working Group (September 1993)
    REPORT OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION WORKING GROUP Vince Ventimiglia Pam Rigby Elizabeth Atwater Kathryn Rosieh Amy Lecocq Jon Sands Liz Phillips Kirsten Swisher September 8, 1993 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iV I. SCOPE OF THE WORKING GROUP AND REPORT l II. SCOPE OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION GUIDELINES AND STATUTES l A. Public Corruption Guidelines 1 B. Amendments to Guidelines 4 l. Amendments to Sections 2C1.1 and 2C1.2 4 2. Addition of Section ZCLT . 5 C. Public Cormption Statutes 5 D. Legislative History 8 E; Proportionality of Punishment Relative to Guidelines for Bribery, Extortion, and Gratuity Involving Other than Public Officials 8 F. Proportionality of Punishment Relative to Statutory Maximum 9 G. Pending Legislation . 10 'III. COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS 10 A Bribery and Gratuity ll l. Specific Intent ll 2. 12 B. Extortion by Threat of Force and Extortion Under Color of Official Righlz I. Primary Distinction Between the Two Extortions: Private Versus ' Public Actor 12 2. Elements of Extortion Under Color of OfEcia.1 Right 13 a. Solicitation of Payment . 13 b. - 14 c. Mgg5,&e,a 14 C. Bllortion and Extortion Under Color of Official Right as Crimes of Violence l5 D. 'FBe"McNa.l1y Fix" - Application of Generic Fraud Statutes to Public Corruption Offenses 15 IV. EXPERT ASSISTANCE, PUBLIC COMMENT, HOTLINE CALLS, ' LITERATURE REVIEW 17 A. Expert Assistance 17 Page i PUBLIC CORRUPTION REPORT - l. Department of Justice ; . 17 2. Practitioners' Advisory Group . .. lb 3. Other Defense Bar Practitioners 18 4. U.S. Probation Officer Advisory Group lg 5. Training Staff ; 19 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Crimes
    Violent Crimes In This Issue Making a Federal Case out of a Death Investigation . 1 By C.J. Williams January 2012 Murder-for-Hire . .9 Volume 60 By Jeff Breinholt Number 1 United States The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . 18 Department of Justice Executive Office for By Andrew Creighton United States Attorneys Washington, DC 20530 Prosecuting Robberies, Burglaries, and Larcenies Under the Federal H. Marshall Jarrett Director Bank Robbery Act . 28 By Jerome M. Maiatico Contributors' opinions and statements should not be considered an endorsement by EOUSA for any policy, program, Repurposing the Kidnapping and Hostage Taking Statutes to Combat or service. Human Trafficking . 36 The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published pursuant to 28 By Erin Creegan CFR § 0.22(b). The United States Attorneys' Carjacking . 46 Bulletin is published bimonthly by the Executive Office for By Julie Wuslich United States Attorneys, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Threats . 52 By Jeff Breinholt Managing Editor Jim Donovan Countering Attempts, Interference, and New Forms of Air Violence . 67 Law Clerk Carmel Matin By Erin Creegan Internet Address www.usdoj.gov/usao/ reading_room/foiamanuals. html Send article submissions and address changes to Managing Editor, United States Attorneys' Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201. Making a Federal Case out of a Death Investigation C.J. Williams Assistant United States Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel Northern District of Iowa I. Introduction How do you respond, as an Assistant United States Attorney, when an agent walks into your office and says, "I've got an investigation involving a death.
    [Show full text]
  • Insider Trading, Congressional Officials, and Duties of Entrustment
    INSIDER TRADING, CONGRESSIONAL OFFICIALS, AND DUTIES OF ENTRUSTMENT DONNA M. NAGY∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1106 I. INSIDER TRADING AS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 ................................................................................................. 1112 A. The Judicial Development of Insider Trading Law ................... 1113 1. The Classical Theory ........................................................... 1113 2. The Misappropriation Theory .............................................. 1116 B. SEC Rule 10b5-2 ....................................................................... 1124 C. Other Obstacles in Prosecuting Insider Trading Cases ............ 1127 II. THE STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE (STOCK) ACT.................................................................................................... 1130 A. The Proposed Legislation .......................................................... 1130 B. The STOCK Act’s Shortcomings................................................ 1132 III. INSIDER TRADING BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND LEGISLATIVE STAFFERS........................................................................................... 1137 A. Members of Congress ................................................................ 1139 1. The Case for Liability Under the Classical Theory ............. 1139 a. Temporary or Constructive Insiders ............................. 1139 b. Public Fiduciaries and Citizen-Investors
    [Show full text]
  • Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: a Practical Guide to Fighting Official Corruption Randy J
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 58 | Issue 5 Article 6 6-1-1983 Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: A Practical Guide to Fighting Official Corruption Randy J. Curato J. Daniel McCurrie Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Randy J. Curato & J. D. McCurrie, Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: A Practical Guide to Fighting Official Corruption, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1027 (1983). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol58/iss5/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: A Practical Guide to Fighting Official Corruption While fraud, waste, and abuse continue to plague government, Congress has passed several statutes that are useful in combating this problem. This note discusses these statutes and their application to government fraud. Part A discusses the Travel Act. Part B reviews the mail fraud statute. Part C examines the Hobbs Act, and Part D analyzes the federal bribery statute. In addition, parts E and F sur- vey the major points involved in the conflict of interest statutes, and RICO's use in government corruption cases. A. THE TRAVEL ACT I. Construction and Purpose The Interstate and Foreign Travel in Aid of Racketeering En- terprises Act, more commonly known as the Travel Act', received congressional approval in 1961, as part of United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy's program to curb organized crime and racketeering.
    [Show full text]
  • White Collar Crime
    Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 1 Article 4 2016 White Collar Crime Robert J. Anello Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. Miriam L. Glaser Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert J. Anello and Miriam L. Glaser, White Collar Crime, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 39 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHITE COLLAR CRIME Robert J. Anello* & Miriam L. Glaser** INTRODUCTION A mention of New York City, the seat of the Second Circuit, invariably evokes thoughts of finance. The home of Wall Street and the World Trade Center, Manhattan is also home to many of the country’s major banks, hedge funds, and stock exchanges; the Securities & Exchange Commission has a branch office in New York, as do the Federal Reserve Bank, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Even the Court of International Trade is located in Manhattan. Unsurprisingly then, New York City has also played host to some of the most important white collar criminal prosecutions in the nation. As the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over this financial center, the Second Circuit has ruled on many critical issues related to white collar crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT TO
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1994 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON TILE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF TILE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1994 Public Integrity Stion Czimiual Division U.S. Department of J*tice Submitted Pursuant to Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 INTRODUCTION This Report to the Congress, prepared as required by Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, details the activities and operations of the Public Integrity Section and provides statistics concerning the nationwide effort against corruption for calendar year 1994. The Public Integrity Section was established in 1976. The Section was given the responsibility for overseeing the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section is also responsible for supervising the handling of investigations and prosecutions of election crimes. Its attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials, and are available as a source of advice and expertise to prosecutors and investigators. The Public Integrity Section also supervises the administration of the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. In addition, the Section serves as the Justice Department's center for the handling of issues that may arise from time to time regarding public corruption investigations and prosecutions. The Section maintains a staff of approximately 25 to 30 attorneys including experts in election law, the laws prohibiting conflicts of interest and bribery, the Independent Counsel provisions, and the statutes providing federal jurisdiction over corruption at the state and local levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Reader's Guide
    Reader’s Guide This list is provided to assist readers in locating article entries on related topics. It classifies entries into 17 topical categories. Some entry titles appear in more than one category. BUSINESS FRAUD & Interlocking Directorates COMPANIES CRIMES Kickbacks A. H. Robins Advertising Fraud Labor Crimes AAMCO Antitrust Mail Fraud Adelphia Communications Arbitrage Insurance Fraud Allied Chemical Bank Fraud Internet Fraud Allied Irish Banks Bankruptcy Fraud Marketing Fraud American Cyanamid Bid Rigging Market Manipulation American Hospital Supply Boycott Outside Directors American Motors Campaign Finance Partnership Fraud Anheuser-Busch Canadian Mining Scandals Patent Infringement Archer Daniels Midland Charity Fraud Predatory Practices Arthur Andersen Cigarette Advertising Price Discrimination AT&T Computer Hacking Price Fixing B. F. Goodrich Copyright Infringement Puffery Banco Ambrosiano Corporate Criminal Liability Redlining Bank of Credit and Commerce Corporate Dumping Revolving Door International Corporate Raiding Small-Business Fraud Banker’s Trust Direct-Mail Fraud Tariff Crimes Barings Bank Economic Espionage Tax Evasion BASF Free Enterprise System Trademark Infringement Beech Aircraft Greenmail Tying Arrangements Beech-Nut Nutrition Hoarding Unfair Trade Practices Board of Directors Illegal Competition Unions Bre-X Industrial Espionage Wire Fraud Canadian Mining Scandals xi xii Reader’s Guide Carl Karcher Enterprises Standard Oil Caribbean Islands Cendant Sumitomo Central America Centennial Savings and Loan Teledyne Industries China Chem-Bio Tyco International Cuba Chevron Unisys Eastern Europe Conoco United American Bank France Crédit Lyonnais United Fruit Germany Daiwa Bank United States Steel Greece Dow Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Hong Kong Drexel Burnham Lambert WorldCom Indonesia E. F. Hutton Ireland Eli Lilly CONSUMERS Israel Enron Corporation Advance Fee Scam Italy Film Recovery Systems Age Discrimination Japan Firestone Tires Automobile Luxembourg Fisher-Price Bait and Switch Mexico Ford Motor Company Bank Fraud Middle East G.
    [Show full text]