ADVERTISEMENTS

Public corruption and honest services fraud are an issue both in Florida and nationally. My next two blog posts will address this issue, first on the Federal level, then on the state level.



Public officials and businesspeople in the U.S. are being charged and in some cases convicted under the Federal honest services fraud statute. The statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346 (1988), is itself an addendum to 18 U.S.C. chapter 63, "Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses," which includes wire fraud and bank fraud. Section 1346, which does not itself define a crime, adds to the definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud." It reads: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."



The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the honest services fraud statute in three cases this term: Black v. United States, Weyhrauch v. United States, and Skilling v. United States.  (The links are to SCOTUSWiki, a companion site to SCOTUSBlog, brought to you by Akin Gump's Supreme Court and Appellate practice group.) According to the Los Angeles Times, during the arguments over Black and Weyhrauch, on December 9, 2009, the Supreme Court seemed dubious about the constitutionality of the honest-services fraud statute, with no real ideological split. The honest-services fraud statute is analyzed, and its history delved into, in this article originally published on the American Bar Association's Web site, "The Honest Services Statute: Scalpel or Axe?"  The Miami Herald ran an editorial in December 2009 about the necessity of the honest-services fraud statute.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.