Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The statutes differ in their jurisdictional elements, the mens rea that they require (for example, a quid pro quo or a nexus), the species of official actions that are cognizable, whether or not non-public official defendants can be prosecuted, and in the authorized sentence. The statutes most often used to prosecute public corruption are the ...
Such conduct becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term quid pro quo denotes such an exchange. [12] In terms of criminal law, quid pro quo tends to get used as a euphemism for crimes such as extortion and bribery. [13]
The Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a United States federal law enacted in 1946 that prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion that affects interstate or foreign commerce, as well as conspiracies to do so. [1]
(The Center Square) – Quid pro quo allegations are a key part of the U.S. government’s corruption case against former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and codefendant Michael McClain.
The ruling narrowed the legal definition of public corruption and made it harder for prosecutors to prove that a political official engaged in bribery. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] The term "official act" does not occur in the statutes charged in the case; rather, the parties to the trial had agreed that they would use the definition of that term given in the ...
The second dimension of corruption is corruption as deviant behavior. Sociologist Christian Höffling and economist J. J. Sentuira both characterized corruption as social illness; the latter defined corruption as the misuse of public power for one's profit. The third dimension is the quid pro quo. Corruption always is an exchange between two or ...
The announcement comes a week after the top Democratic lawmaker on a U.S. House oversight panel sought information from nine oil companies about reports about "quid pro quo propositions" made by ...
Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. [1]