FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE EXPLAINED
The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), is the most commonly used federal law to prosecute the bribery of public officials. It outlaws anyone directly or indirectly giving, offering to give, or promising anything of value to a public official with the intent to influence an official act. The statute also outlaws influencing a federal official to allow or participate in any fraud against the United States or inducing an official to violate their public duty. The bribery statute also makes it illegal for the public official to seek, receive, or agree to receive something of value to induce them into making a specific official act. In essence, the bribery statute makes both sides guilty if they are involved in an illegal bribe. The most important thing that federal prosecutors are typically looking for in proving a federal bribery case is that the defendant corruptly engaged in a quid pro quo agreement. Quid pro quo can simply be described as a “this for that” arrangement. One person gives something of value expecting something else of value in return. A conviction under the federal bribery statute carries up to fifteen years in prison, along with a fine as determined by the court.
FEDERAL GRATUITES STATUTE EXPLAINED
The federal gratuites statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), makes it a crime to offer or accept a gratuity to a public official. A gratuity is something of value given for or because of an official act performed or to be performed by a federal public official. Typically, a gratuity is akin to a “tip” for some sort of service rendered. The major difference between federal bribery and federal gratuites is that bribery has more required elements, making it a more serious and difficult offense to prove. Offering or accepting a gratuity is a lesser included offense of federal bribery. A conviction under the federal gratuites statute carries up to two years in prison, along with a fine as determined by the court. If you are facing public corruption charges related to either an allegation of bribery or receiving gratuites, then it is important that you speak to an experienced public corruption attorney who can best guide you.
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRIBERY AND GRATUITES
A gratuity, as stated above, has less required elements to prove than does the federal bribery statute. A federal bribery charge requires proof of a quid pro quo or a corrupt intent to influence some sort of official act. In most cases, the timing of an illegal payment is central to determining if a bribery or gratuites charge is most appropriate. If the payment occurs after the alleged official act, then it is most likely to result in a gratuites charge. If the payment occurs before, then the prosecutor will have better circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of a quid pro quo arrangement and will likely result in bribery charges. A gratuity is different from a bribe as a gratuity must be paid directly to the public official. A bribery charge does not require direct payment to the public official in order to result in a conviction. The descriptions above relating to the federal bribery and gratuites statutes are general in nature and are not intended to be considered legal advice. If you have any questions about political contributions you have made that you are concerned about, or are wondering whether a potential contribution may cause you legal trouble, the attorneys are Bajoka Law are standing by to answer your questions to help put you in the best legal position.
