Bribery vs. Acceptance of Gifts
According to <a href="http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/02/ray_nagin_trial_live_covera…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the New Orleans <i>Times-Picayune</i></a>, yesterday former
New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin was convicted on 20 of the 21 corruption
charges against him, primarily for bribery, honest services fraud,
and tax fraud.<br>
<br>
This hard-fought battle was actually about one thing only, whether
gifts given to the mayor were intended to influence him. From a
government ethics perspective, this was unnecessary. The acceptance
of gifts from someone seeking benefits is sufficient. Therefore, all
the additional discovery and presentation of evidence was
unnecessary, except to ensure that he would do time.<br>
<br>
It's worth a look at <a href="http://media.nola.com/crime_impact/other/Nagin%20Jury%20charge%20instru…; target="”_blank”">the judge's instructions to the jury</a>. Here is what the judge said about bribery with respect
to the counts of honest services fraud (p. 11):<blockquote>
[B]ribery includes the public official's solicitation or agreement
to accept a thing of value in exchange for official action, whether
or not the payor actually provides the thing of value, and whether
or not the public official ultimately performs the requested
official action or intends to do so.<br>
<br>
The public official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in
express terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by
knowing winks and nods. Rather, the intent to exchange may be
established by circumstantial evidence, based upon the defendant's
words, conduct, acts, and all the surrounding circumstances
disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical inferences
that may be drawn from them.<br>
<br>
Bribery requires the intent to effect an exchange of money or other
thing of value for official action, but each payment need not be
correlated with a specific official act. The requirement that there
be payment of a thing of value in return for the performance of an
official act is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a "course of
conduct" of things of value flowing to a public official in exchange
for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor.<br>
<br>
It is not a defense to claim that a public official would have
lawfully performed the official action in question even without
having accepted a thing of value. ... Also, because people rarely
act for a single purpose, the giver need not have offered or
provided the thing of value only in exchange for specific official
actions, and the public official need not have solicited or accepted
the thing of value only in exchange for the performance of official
action.</blockquote>
For more on Nagin, see my posts on <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/739" target="”_blank”">a gift loophole</a> and
on <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/new-orleans-mayors-indictment-shows-w…; target="”_blank”">how
the indictment shows the weakness of the New Orleans ethics
program</a>.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---