The press (e.g., Washington Post here; NOLA.com here; BLT Blog here) is reporting that the jury will receive ex-congressman's William Jefferson's case tomorrow. The Indictment  included counts related to bribery, RICO, money laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Obstruction of Justice. 

From these press reports, it sounds like one interesting question that the jury will be examining is whether his activities meet the definition of an "official act" for purposes of the bribery statute. The government is required to prove that the accused acted corruptly to influence an official act.  The statute defines "official act" as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." The definition has been the subject of prior court controversy.  For example, in the case of U.S. v. Muntain(DC Cir. 1979) the defendant argued "that his actions were not 'official acts'  in that they did not involve matters that would be brought before him in his official capacity. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals accepted this argument, finding that the promotion of group automobile insurance was not a matter that would be brought before Muntain in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor Relations at HUD." See Podgor & Israel, White Collar Crime in a Nutshell 4th 115 (2009).

(esp) 

Back in the 1970s and 80s, the FBI ran an undercover operation to stop corruption by government officials.  Convictions included a New Jersey Senator, members of Congress and others.  The government set up a phony business to lure individuals to commit crimes, and despite claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct, many of the convictions stood.

Fast forward 30 years and we see the government again is using an undercover operation to arrest many politicians and some religious leaders.  The charges are no longer simple bribery or conspiracy charges.  Rather now we see newer statutes, like money laundering, statutes that carry more significant penalties.

An Acting US Attorney is proud to say that he is behind charges against "mayors of Hoboken, Secaucus and Ridgefield, the Jersey City deputy mayor and council president, two state assemblymen, numerous other public officials and political figures," and yes  community religious leaders.  The long list of complaints and press release can be found here. But as one reads these complaints one has to wonder about the "CW" – cooperating witness – that seems to be behind so many of these cases.  One also has to wonder what if any individual gains or profits accrued to each of the individuals charged with the alleged crimes. Finally one has to wonder why the government felt a  "perp walk" was necessary here.  Did they really think these individuals would flee, destroy evidence, or not turn themselves in voluntarily?

See also, Ted Sherman & Joe Ryan, NJ.com, Massive N.J. corruption sting targets mayors, legislators, rabbis

(esp)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is in the middle of conducting a corruption investigation – a Pay-to-Play kickback scheme - with the past chair of the former state liberal party being mentioned in this investigation.  In a press release by Cuomo's office it states that the individual allegedly "obtained over $800,000 in illegal fees on State pension fund investments as a reward for opening up a State Assembly seat . . .and for over 30 years of prior political endorsements." "Cuomo also announced that hedge fund manager and classical music impresario Barrett Wissman has pled guilty to a Martin Act felony for his role in the pay-to-play scheme and will pay $12 million in penalties and forfeiture to New York State over a period of three years."  The SEC previously had complaints against two individuals in this matter, but added the former leader of the New York Liberal Party and Wissman to the SEC complaint. (see here) The New York Times reported on this recent investigation related to pension funds. See Danny Hakim & Mary Williams Walsh, NYTimes, In State Pension Inquiry, a Scandal Snowballs. 

(esp)
function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1397793600&en=86ce40c4bde9dd00&ei=5124';}

function getShareURL() {
return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/nyregion/18pension.html');
}
function getShareHeadline() {
return encodeURIComponent('In State Pension Inquiry, a Scandal Snowballs');
}
function getShareDescription() {
return encodeURIComponent('The inquiry into corruption at the New York State pension fund has ballooned into a sprawling investigation involving prominent players.');
}
function getShareKeywords() {
return encodeURIComponent('Frauds and Swindling,Pensions and Retirement Plans,Securities and Commodities Violations,New York State,Steven L Rattner,Alan G Hevesi');
}
function getShareSection() {
return encodeURIComponent('nyregion');
}
function getShareSectionDisplay() {
return encodeURIComponent('New York Region');
}
function getShareSubSection() {
return encodeURIComponent('');
}
function getShareByline() {
return encodeURIComponent('By DANNY HAKIM and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH');
}
function getSharePubdate() {
return encodeURIComponent('April 18, 2009');
}

The new Illinois Governor, as his first executive order, has decided to take on the fight against corruption in government.  He issued an Executive Order creating the Illinois Reform Commission that has several purposes including "to undertake a focused evaluation of both existing Illinois law and the operational practices of the State of Illinois from the perspective of ethics in government, proposing, as the Commission deems appropriate, amendments to existing law."  Although Governor Pat Quinn established this commission before former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment and conviction, this act was his first Executive Order, sending the clear message that he means business.

(esp)