Publication
Mission impossible? Teresa Ribera’s mission letter and the future of EU merger review
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
United States | Publication | July 2024
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held in Snyder v. United States that 18 U.S.C. § 666 does not apply to gratuities—even those that raise eyebrows and ethical concerns. The federal statute prohibits public officials, including most state and local officials, from "corruptly" soliciting, accepting or agreeing to accept "anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" in connection with an official business or transaction worth US$5,000 or more. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and (b). Indisputably, § 666 prohibits public officials from accepting bribes, that is “payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Courts had long been split regarding whether § 666 applied to gratuities—“payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” But SCOTUS has now determined that federal prosecution of gratuity payments was an inappropriate application of § 666 because it would leave many—mailman receiving a family’s holiday tip or a public school teacher accepting a gift basket from a student's parents—wondering whether the federal law applied to their conduct. SCOTUS emphasized, yet again, that when imposing criminal repercussions, a defendant should never be left in doubt.
Snyder involved a former city mayor in Indiana who, while mayor, was involved in awarding two contracts to a local truck company, and ultimately, the city purchased five trash trucks for about US$1.1 million. The following year, the truck company cut the then-mayor a check for US$13,000. The mayor argued that he received the check for "consulting services" performed for the trucking company, but federal prosecutors alleged that the payment was a § 666-prohibited gratuity. The mayor was convicted and sentenced to one year and nine months in prison. On appeal, the mayor argued that § 666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. SCOTUS agreed for the following six reasons:
The Court highlighted the importance of the timing of the agreement, not the payment. Under § 666, an official is still prevented from skirting punishment by making an agreement before the act to be “rewarded,” but accepting payment after the act claiming it as a gratuity.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch underscored that “any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct.” When that happens, he continued, “judges are bound by the ancient rule of lenity” to decide “not for the prosecutor, but for the presumptively free individual.” In other words, when in doubt don’t charge.
Snyder follows a recent trend towards curtailing federal prosecutors broad interpretations of federal anti-corruption laws, which is running parallel with the curtailment of the almost unfettered powers of federal agencies in decision like SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. __ (2024) (limiting SEC powers) and Loper v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. __ (2024) (overruling the Chevron doctrine, which had Courts give deference to federal agencies previously considered “experts” in their respective fields). The last session of SCOTUS also brought a pair of unanimous decisions vacating the federal fraud and corruption conviction of two New York State political operatives and limiting the scope of honest-services wire fraud. Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), and Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023). In Percoco, the Court rejected the idea that a private citizen who may have some control or domination over decisions of government officials can violate “the intangible right of honest services” in the federal wire fraud statute. Similarly, in Ciminelli, the Supreme Court rejected an expansive property-deprivation theory of wire-fraud liability.
A few years prior, in 2020, in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS overturned the convictions of two defendants in the “Bridgegate” scandal involving the shutdown of the George Washington Bridge to punish a political opponent in an adjacent town. In Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (2020), the Court found that, while perhaps there was an abuse of power, the defendant’s actions were not a federal crime, and the defendants’ convictions were overturned.
The Court’s messaging is clear: where federal statutes do not expressly prohibit conduct, it is not up to federal prosecutors to fill the gaps. It remains to be seen if the Department of Justice will recalibrate some of its more ambitious corruption prosecutions, having seen its theories repeatedly rebuked by the Court. An important caveat to Snyder (and the other decisions) is that state and local governments still have the right to regulate gratuities and state and local officials should remain mindful of state and local regulations.
A special thanks to New York Associate Sarah Perlin for contributions to this legal update.
Publication
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Publication
For many global organisations, finding the right balance between having global, unified compliance programs, and the need to address local legal and compliance risks, is a challenge. In this blog, we will address the challenge that money laundering and related issues presents to Indian companies operating in Europe.
Publication
On November 28, 2023, the European Commission (EC) adopted its first list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), i.e., projects within the EU territory, and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMIs), i.e., projects connecting the EU with other countries, including 166 projects implementing the European Green Deal.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023