Extortion By Public Officials Prosecutions
1. Overview
Extortion by public officials occurs when a government employee or official uses their position to unlawfully obtain money, property, or favors through coercion, threats, or misuse of power. It’s a form of public corruption and is prosecuted under both federal and state laws.
2. Legal Framework
Key statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act): Prohibits extortion affecting interstate commerce, including “under color of official right” extortion by public officials.
18 U.S.C. § 872: Criminalizes extortion under color of official right involving U.S. officers.
18 U.S.C. § 201: Prohibits bribery of public officials, often overlapping with extortion.
State laws also criminalize extortion by officials.
Hobbs Act extortion "under color of official right" means:
A public official obtains property not due to them or their office by misusing their official power, without necessarily using explicit threats.
3. Elements of Extortion Under the Hobbs Act
The defendant is a public official.
They obtained property (or payment) from another.
The property was obtained “under color of official right”, i.e., by misuse of official power.
The extortion affected interstate commerce.
4. Key Case Law
Case 1: McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)
Facts:
A public official accepted money from a company but argued it was a campaign contribution, not extortion.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that extortion under color of official right requires proof that the public official obtained the payment knowingly and willfully, but not that the victim consented under duress.
Significance:
Clarified that the Hobbs Act covers public officials who receive payments through misuse of power, even if the payer voluntarily pays.
Case 2: Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992)
Facts:
A state legislator accepted payments from a business in exchange for official acts.
Holding:
The Court ruled that proof of a quid pro quo (a specific exchange) is required to convict under the Hobbs Act for extortion.
Significance:
Sets the standard that prosecutors must show a clear agreement: official act in exchange for payment.
Case 3: United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999)
Facts:
A public official received gifts related to his official duties.
Holding:
The Supreme Court required prosecutors to prove the gift was given because of an official act.
Significance:
Limits convictions to situations where gifts or payments are directly tied to an official act, strengthening the quid pro quo requirement.
Case 4: United States v. Omari, 405 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2005)
Facts:
A city official was convicted of extortion for demanding payments from contractors.
Holding:
The appeals court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that extortion under color of official right does not require explicit threats, only misuse of power to obtain payments.
Significance:
Reinforces that explicit threats are unnecessary for extortion convictions of public officials.
Case 5: United States v. Garguilo, 2017 WL 3325959 (2d Cir.)
Facts:
A public official accepted bribes disguised as consulting fees in exchange for official favors.
Holding:
The court affirmed conviction, emphasizing the deceptive nature of payments designed to hide extortionate exchanges.
Significance:
Shows courts’ willingness to pierce disguises like fake consulting fees to find extortion.
Case 6: United States v. McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2015), aff’d 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016)
Facts:
Governor McDonnell was charged with extortion for accepting gifts in exchange for official actions.
Holding:
The Supreme Court narrowed the definition of an “official act,” ruling that mere arranging meetings or hosting events does not qualify unless it involves a formal exercise of governmental power.
Significance:
Narrowed the scope of what constitutes extortion under federal law, requiring clear official acts.
5. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| McCormick v. U.S. (1991) | Extortion without victim duress | Voluntary payments can be extortion if official misuse |
| Evans v. U.S. (1992) | Requirement of quid pro quo | Must prove explicit exchange for official act |
| Sun-Diamond Growers (1999) | Link between gift and official act | Gifts must be given because of official acts |
| U.S. v. Omari (2005) | Extortion without explicit threats | Misuse of power alone sufficient |
| U.S. v. Garguilo (2017) | Disguised bribes | Courts look beyond form to substance |
| U.S. v. McDonnell (2016) | Definition of “official act” | Limited what constitutes an official act |
6. Conclusion
Extortion prosecutions of public officials are a key tool in fighting public corruption. Federal courts require proof of:
Misuse of official power
Intentional obtaining of property or payments
Often, an explicit quid pro quo agreement between the official and the payer
But threats or force are not necessary in Hobbs Act cases involving officials—misusing one’s position alone can constitute extortion.
The Supreme Court has refined the scope over time, especially regarding what qualifies as an “official act,” making prosecutions more precise but still robust against corruption.
RELATED Blog
0 comments