69–010 

Calendar No. 527 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–239 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT 

OF 2007 

DECEMBER 10, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1946] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 1946) to help federal prosecutors and investigators combat public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill 

(as amended) do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007 ....................................................................................... 1 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 10 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 11 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 12 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 14 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 14 

VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 14 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION

PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007 

A. BACKGROUND

Earlier this year, Congress took an important first step in restoring Americans’ faith in their elected officials by passing long-awaited ethics and lobbying reforms that tighten restrictions on those 

who hold public office, as well as those who seek to lobby officeholders on behalf of private industry. See Honest Leadership and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

Open Government Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110–81, 121 Stat. 

735. This positive legislation will enhance transparency and ethical 

accountability for Members of Congress and outside interests. But 

stamping out official corruption in all branches and at all levels of 

government requires Congress to do more than change its own 

rules. It requires Congress to move forward in a bi-partisan fashion 

to give law enforcement the resources it needs to effectively investigate and prosecute public corruption crimes, and to clarify and 

strengthen existing laws so that corrupt conduct can be detected 

and punished. 

Public corruption undermines democracy and good governance by 

subverting established processes and reducing accountability. It 

also creates negative economic effects by distorting the playing 

field for government contracts, reducing the need for compliance 

with rules and regulations, and diminishing the quality of government services. District of Columbia residents are confronting these 

negative effects following the recent arrests of several Department 

of Tax and Revenue employees who allegedly bilked District taxpayers out of more than $40 million in a multi-year fraud scheme. 

See Carol D. Leonnig & Dan Keating, D.C. Tax Scandal At $44.3 

Million, Analysis Finds, Wash. Post, Dec. 2, 2007, at A1. This disturbing episode is a reminder that absent appropriate checks and 

enforcement, even middle-level government employees can massively corrupt core government functions, undetected, for years. 

While this degree of brazen corrupt conduct may not always result in tangible harm to a specific victim, it does result in a serious 

societal harm. Public corruption victimizes all Americans by quietly 

chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Americans’

faith in their elected leaders and their Government has been tested 

in recent years as several high-ranking public officials have pleaded guilty or been convicted of serious and corrosive public corruption offenses. The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of 

Government and affected both major political parties. 

The American people have taken notice. Exit polls following the 

2006 mid-term elections revealed that 42 percent of voters identified ‘‘corruption and ethics’’ as ‘‘extremely important to their vote,’’ trumping terrorism, the economy and Iraq. Corruption Named as 

Key Issue by Voters in Exit Polls, CNN, Nov. 8, 2006, http:// 

www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/. They rightly 

expect Congress to do all it can to not only police itself, but also 

to insure that corruption is stamped out at all levels of government. 

B. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Notwithstanding several recent prosecutions of high-profile public officials, public corruption enforcement generally has waned 

since 9/11, because scarce FBI resources have been shifted away 

from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. See, e.g., 

Paul Shukovsky & Daniel Lathrop, FBI Faces Deep Cuts in Programs to Fight Crimes, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 28, 2007, 

at A1. A September 2005 report by Department of Justice Inspector 

General Glenn Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an 

overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. 

See Office of the Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The External 

Effects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Reprioritization EfVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
3 

1 At a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller noted that the number of ‘‘pending’’ public corruption cases has increased by 49 percent since 2001. Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Robert S. Muller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation). 

But increases in the number of ‘‘pending’’ cases—which likely means open investigations—is not 

evidence that the level of public corruption enforcement generally is satisfactory. If anything, 

the extraordinary increase in pending, rather than completed, cases cited by Director Mueller 

suggests that the only way to sustain an increase in actual prosecutions and convictions is to 

restore those resources for public corruption investigations and prosecutions that have been diverted since 9/11. 

forts 94 (2005), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0537/ 

final.pdf. More recently, a study by the nonpartisan research group 

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) found that the 

prosecution of all kinds of white collar crimes is down 27 percent 

since 2000, and official corruption cases have dropped in the same 

period by 14 percent. See Federal Enforcement Data Show Major 

Changes in How The Bush Administration Has Enforced the Law, 

TRAC Reports, Oct. 15, 2007, http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/ 

184/. 

Man-power and funding shortages have contributed to these declines, and this trend has real-world consequences: the Wall Street 

Journal reported recently that the investigation of a federal elected 

official stalled for six months because the investigating U.S. Attorney’s Office could not afford to replace the prosecutor who was handling the case. Scot J. Paltrow, Justice Delayed: Budget Crunch 

Hits U.S. Attorneys’ Offices; Amid Antiterror Focus, Prosecutions 

Decline, Wall St. J., Aug. 31, 2007, at A1 (quoting a former Assistant United States Attorney that ‘‘many offices have chosen not to 

take on some difficult cases because they lack the prosecutors and 

other resources to pursue them’’).1

Funding shortfalls in this area of criminal enforcement should be 

of particular concern to lawmakers. Public corruption cases are 

time and resource intensive, because they often involve complex 

schemes hatched by sophisticated criminals who know how to cover 

their tracks. Their investigation and prosecution frequently requires teams of federal agents, multiple prosecutors, financial analysts, and paralegals, among other specialists. They often include 

the use of time-consuming investigative techniques such as forensic 

analysis as well as the execution of search warrants and wiretaps. 

Efforts to fully fund anti-corruption units to ensure that investigators and prosecutors have enough time to put cases together are 

imperative because without adequate time and resources, these 

cases simply will not be brought. 

Even absent the diversion of resources since 9/11, public corruption enforcement must be a national law enforcement priority for 

this Congress, because corrupt public officials can compromise our 

national security in alarming ways. Indeed, the FBI’s own web site 

notes that ‘‘public corruption can have a direct impact on national 

security,’’ and it is not difficult to understand this relationship. 

Cracking Down on Public Corruption: Why We Take It So Seriously 

and Why It Matters to You, FBI, June 20, 2005, http://www.fbi.gov/ 

page2/june05/obrien062005.htm. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle a dirty bomb into the country could 

cause grave harm to our national security, as could a corrupt consular officer who illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
4 

2 Unfortunately, these examples are not far-fetched. Earlier this year, an Iranian national 

pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington, D.C. to committing visa fraud at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The fraud, which was perpetrated with the assistance 

of a consular employee, resulted in at least 25 Iranian males illegally entering the U.S. with 

seemingly legitimate U.S. visas. See Factual Basis for Plea, United States v. Shajirat, Crim. No. 

1:04–cr–0015–RMU–2 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2007). 

rorists.2 This link between public corruption and national security 

must be addressed if Congress is serious about doing all it can to 

protect national security. 

Corruption cases are also very difficult to prove, so Congress 

must speak with absolute clarity in those statutes that criminalize 

corrupt conduct by Government employees and officials. Those who 

agree to sell their office for personal gain through a bribery 

scheme, or to use their office to extort money from private citizens, 

know how to recognize and exploit ambiguities in the law that have 

been created by unexpected court decisions or by creative end-runs 

around the anti-corruption laws unforeseen by the policy makers 

who originally passed those laws. Just as Congress recently shored 

up its ethics rules to leave no doubt as to the obvious impropriety 

of taking excessive gifts from outside interests, it is crucial that 

Congress shore up the criminal law to close loopholes and resolve 

legal ambiguities that may allow corrupt actors to evade or defeat 

prosecution. 

C. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT

The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007 responds directly and sensibly to these needs by giving prosecutors 

more time, resources, and legal tools to detect and prosecute public 

corruption. It creates no new criminal offenses, but instead 

tightens and clarifies existing laws to give public officials fair notice of the line between ethical breaches and criminal acts. 

The Committee emphasizes that this bi-partisan legislation is directed at no particular political party or public official, as both parties have suffered through embarrassing breaches by some of their 

elected officials, and none of the bill’s provisions may be applied 

retroactively to on-going prosecutions. Instead, this is a targeted 

bill directed at those in any branch of government who would use 

their public office to line their pockets at the expense of the American public. 

The bill’s seventeen provisions can be divided in three general 

categories as follows. 

1. More time and resources for public corruption investigations and 

prosecutions 

The bill extends the statute of limitations from five to six years 

for three of the most serious public corruption offenses: bribery, extortion by a public official, and public sector honest services fraud. 

As noted, public corruption cases are among the most difficult and 

time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. A September 

2005 Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report noted that ‘‘public corruption investigations often require difficult, time-consuming source development [and] take longer to develop than other 

public integrity cases * * * due to the complex and sensitive nature of the investigations.’’ See Office of the Inspector Gen., U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, at 94. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
5 

3The investigation is on-going, but the expected loss from the alleged D.C. Department of Tax 

and Revenue fraud scheme may be as high as $44 million. See Leonnig & Keating, supra, at 

A1. 

among other offenses, all have ten-year statutes of limitations. 

Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and 

a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable 

step to help corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. 

Public corruption investigations are not only time-consuming, 

they are also expensive. In response to the shift of resources away 

from corruption and toward counterterrorism in recent years, the 

bill also provides $25 million per year for fiscal years 2008–2011 

for FBI and Department of Justice efforts to combat official corruption. This money will ensure that federal investigators and prosecutors have the resources they need to more effectively root out official corruption at all levels of government. This modest increase in 

funding would be less than the alleged loss to taxpayers in just one 

recent public corruption prosecution in the District of Columbia.3

2. Legislative fixes to strengthen and clarify existing statutes 

The bill also contains a series of legislative fixes to improve the 

clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing federal statutes. 

These improvements will cost nothing to implement, but they will 

lead to greater deterrence and more effective prosecutions by clarifying the law and by closing existing loopholes that thwart congressional intent. 

a. Venue in federal cases 

The first set of improvements relate to venue in federal cases— the district or districts where federal prosecutions may be brought. 

The bill broadens the part of the general venue statute—18 U.S.C. 

§ 3237(a)—that governs venue in mail fraud cases, among other socalled ‘‘continuing’’ offenses that may be carried out in more than 

one district. The bill would permit venue to lie in any district in 

which an act in furtherance of the offense is committed. It is designed to address situations where the bulk of the criminal conduct 

takes place in one district, but the required mailing to facilitate 

that scheme happens to occur in another. For example, if a fraud 

scheme is hatched and carried out by a public official from his 

Washington, D.C. office, but the mailing in furtherance of that 

scheme happens to be dropped in a mailbox near the public official’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, venue should be able to lie in 

the District of Columbia, because the principle acts in furtherance 

of the scheme took place in the District. Under current law, the 

case could only be brought in Maryland. The intent of this provision is to expand venue to include districts where any part of the 

offense occurred as well as the district where the actual mailing 

took place. 

The bill also includes a common-sense extension of venue in obstruction of justice and perjury prosecutions to include not only the 

district where the conduct constituting the offense took place, but 

also the district where the proceeding that the defendant intended 

to obstruct or affect took place. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 already expanded venue in precisely this way for certain obstruction 

prosecutions, including 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (witness tampering). See 

Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745. This bill simply applies this extenVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
6 

4 As one legal commentator has observed: ‘‘If [the Sun-Diamond Court’s requirement of a 

‘‘link’’ in gratuities cases] sounds like the crime of bribery, that is because it is. The Court has 

essentially eliminated the separate crime of unlawful gratuity and turned it into a lesser included offense of bribery.’’ George D. Brown, Putting Watergate Behind Us—Salinas, Sun-Diamond, and Two Views of the Anticorruption Model, 74 Tulane L. Rev. 747, 774 (2000). 5The Sun-Diamond nexus requirement can lead to perverse results. For example, under current law, a private citizen may keep a public official on retainer by making substantial periodic 

payments to the official so long as there is an understanding that the money is not intended 

to influence any specific act, but is instead intended to build a reservoir of goodwill in the event 

that matters arise that would benefit the private interest. While these payments may run afoul 

of the gift rules, they are not actionable bribes or gratuities absent a provable ‘‘link.’’ Such payments would be gratuities under this bill so long as they are made because of the person’s public 

office, which is precisely what the law provided before Sun-Diamond. See United States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir. 1995) (‘‘[I]t is sufficient for the government to show that 

the defendant was given the gratuity simply because he held public office.’’); United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978) (‘‘[I]t is not necessary that the official actually engage 

in identifiable conduct or misconduct nor that any specific quid pro quo be contemplated by the 

parties nor even that the official actually be capable of providing some official act as quid pro 

quo at the time [because] [t]he purpose of the[ ] [bribery and conflict of interest] statutes is to 

reach any situation in which the judgment of a government agent might be clouded because of 

payments or gifts made to him by reason of his position.’’). 

sion to the other obstruction-related statutes in the obstruction of 

justice chapter of the Federal Criminal Code. The same logic that 

led Congress to expand venue in the obstruction context applies 

with equal force to perjury prosecutions. 

b. Clarifications to bribery, gratuities, and mail/wire fraud 

statutes 

The second set of improvements relates to the federal bribery, 

gratuities, and general fraud statutes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1341 

and 1343. 

The bill reverses the Supreme Court’s holding in United States 

v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999), which severely restricted the application of the illegal gratuities statute. Contrary to 

the understandings of every circuit court to have considered the 

issue, the Supreme Court in Sun-Diamond imposed a new element 

to the federal gratuities statute, requiring the government to prove 

a ‘‘link’’ between the gratuity and an official act. This additional 

element makes the statute nearly impossible to differentiate from 

the federal bribery statute, which also requires a link between corrupt conduct and a specific act. In practice, the nexus requirement 

means that a spectrum of cases that fall short of a bribe but plainly 

involve corrupt conduct may not now be charged as gratuities absent a demonstrable link between the payment and specific official 

action.4 Yet Congress plainly intended the gratuities statute to capture a far broader range of conduct than the bribery statute, because gratuities is a two-year offense while the statutory maximum 

penalty for bribery is fifteen years. In the wake of Sun-Diamond, 

the federal gratuities statute is rarely invoked. In light of the 

nexus requirement, prosecutors have an incentive to charge a bribe 

in every case that they can charge, as the burdens of proof for the 

two offenses are essentially the same.5

The bill would return the state of the law with regard to gratuities as it existed before 1999 by including within their statutory 

definition those benefits given to a public official ‘‘for or because of’’

that official’s position. This will allow the statute to reach its intended range of corrupt conduct, including benefits flowing to public officials designed to curry favor for non-specified future acts or 

to build a reservoir of goodwill. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
7 

6This safe harbor is intended to include only duly enacted federal regulations and duly enacted Rules of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, see, e.g., Standing 

Rules of the Senate, S. Doc. No. 110–9 (2007), and is not intended to include other operating 

procedures and policies established by individual offices, departments, or agencies of the Government. 7The Committee’s action does not bring campaign contributions within the reach of the federal gratuities statute. By the very terms of the statute, campaign contributions cannot be 

charged as gratuities because, unlike bribes, gratuities may only be charged if they are given 

‘‘personally’’ to the public officials, while campaign contributions by definition are given to a separate entity. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B). Campaign contributions can theoretically be charged 

as bribes, which need not be paid directly to the public official; but the bill in no way disturbs 

well-settled Supreme Court precedent that an explicit quid-pro-quo agreement is required in 

order for a campaign contribution to be charged as a bribe, even if the campaign contribution 

is itself unlawful. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272–74 (1991). Moreover, campaign contributions are explicitly permitted by government rules and regulations, see, e.g., 

Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XXXV(1)(c)(2), and the gratuities statute as modified by this 

bill would not permit prosecution of anything allowed by rules and regulations, including campaign contributions. The Committee recognizes that campaign contributions are an essential 

component of our democracy, and this bill is in no way intended to restrict or criminalize this 

activity. 8One commentator recently observed that ‘‘[t]o permit public officials to use their positions 

of public trust to line their pockets with cash and escape prosecution under the anti-gratuities 

statute because the action fails to meet some vague degree of formality makes a mockery out 

of the law’s attempt to punish corruption.’’ Tara Malloy, Corrupt Officials Shouldn’t Escape 

Through a Loophole in the Gratuities Law, Legal Times, Nov. 12, 2007, at 58. 

To foreclose unrestrained prosecutorial discretion in this sensitive area in the law, however, the bill also provides an additional 

protection that was not included in the original gratuities statute, 

and that responds to concerns that contributed to the Sun-Diamond 

Court’s decision to restrict the reach of the statute. Specifically, the 

bill creates a safe harbor for Government officials who accept 

things of value pursuant to applicable rule or regulation. This 

carve-out responds to the examples Justice Scalia set out in SunDiamond of de minimis gifts that, as the law stood in 1999, could 

have triggered the gratuities statute, by exempting from prosecution for gratuities all benefits accepted by public officials that are 

permitted by rules or regulations.6 This new provision squarely addresses Justice Scalia’s parade of horribles in Sun-Diamond by constraining prosecutorial discretion in cases where federal prosecution would clearly be inappropriate.7 See, e.g., 5 CFR § 2635.204(a) 

(permitting government employees to accept gifts valued at $20 or 

less, such as a baseball cap); 5 CFR § 2635.204(j) (permitting the 

President or Vice President to accept any gift not intended to influence official action, such as a replica sports jersey). 

The bill also clarifies the definition of what it means for a public 

official to engage in an ‘‘official act,’’ for purposes of the federal 

bribery and gratuities statutes. The need for clarification arose 

most recently in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Valdes v. United 

States, 475 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (en banc). In that case, a 

fractured court sitting en banc held that, when a D.C. police detective used a police computer to search a law enforcement database 

for information on particular individuals in exchange for several secret cash payments, he could not be convicted of bribery or gratuities because no official act was involved.8 The court held that his 

actions did not have the requisite degree of formality to fall within 

the definition of an ‘‘official act’’ for purposes of bribery or gratuities statutes. This cramped re-formulation of the ‘‘official acts’’

standard is at odds with the legislative history of the bribery statute. See Brief of Appellee at 16–25, United States v. Valdes, 475 

F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (No. 03–3066) (detailing legislative history of the federal bribery statute). As the dissenting judges obVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
8 

9One recent example of such litigation arose in the 2003 prosecution and conviction of former 

Bridgeport, Connecticut mayor Joseph P. Ganim. During his recent appeal, Mr. Ganim argued 

that this bribery conviction should be overturned because the Government was required to link 

each alleged benefit to a specific act that he performed. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, and held that, ‘‘bribery can be accomplished through on ongoing course of conduct, so long 

as evidence shows that the favors and gifts flowing to a public official are in exchange for a 

pattern of official actions favorable to the donor.’’). United States v. Gamin, No. 03–1448–cr, slip 

op. at 24–26 (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2007). 10The bill makes this same clarification to the statute governing federal prosecution of state 

and local bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 666, and it lowers the transactional threshold for section 666 bribery prosecutions from $5,000 to $1,000. 11There are other statutes in the Federal Criminal Code that use the terms ‘‘thing of value’’

and ‘‘official act.’’ The Committee’s decision to clarify how those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 201 and 666 should not be viewed as an implicit congressional judgment about the use of 

these terms elsewhere in the Code. 

served, this interpretation ‘‘effects a judicial contraction’’ of the ‘‘official acts’’ standard and will ‘‘undermine the prosecution of public 

corruption.’’ Id. at 1333, 1346 (Garland, J., dissenting). 

To address this overly-narrow conception of official action, the 

bill explicitly adopts the tried-and-true language from the Supreme 

Court’s decision in United States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914), 

defining ‘‘official act,’’ and thereby makes clear that ‘‘[e]very action 

that is within the range of official duty comes within the purview 

of the bribery statute.’’ Id. at 30. The D.C. Circuit’s hyper-technical 

reading of the ‘‘official acts’’ standard unnecessarily disrupts uniformity in the law, and undermines fair notice to public officials 

that they may not legally accept secret benefits from private interests in return for any action within the range of their official duties. 

The bill also closes a potential loophole by clarifying bribery law 

in cases where there is an on-going stream of financial benefits 

flowing from a private source to a public official. In such cases, it 

may be impossible to establish a one-to-one link between a specific 

payment and a specific official act. No circuit presently requires 

such a one-to-one showing, but to avoid confusion and unnecessary 

litigation,9 the bill clarifies that a corrupt payment can be made to 

influence more than one official act, and, to the same end, that a 

series of such payments may be made to influence a public official 

in performing a series of official acts.10 See United States v. Gamin, 

No. 03–1448–cr, slip op. (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2007) (holding that, in the 

bribery context, the government does not have to tie payments to 

specific acts but instead can prove that ‘‘the favors and gifts flowing to a public official are in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor.’’); United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 

666, 673 (4th Cir. 2004) (‘‘The quid pro quo requirement is satisfied 

so long as the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and 

gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official 

actions favorable to the donor.’’). This clarification is intended to 

codify this basic understanding of ‘‘course of conduct’’ bribery. Congress should leave no doubt that a bribery charge cannot be defeated merely because the government cannot match up each specific payment in a series with specific official acts.11 Id. 

Finally, the bill broadens coverage of the mail and wire fraud 

statutes, which may be used in tandem with other statutes to prosecute public corruption. The term ‘‘money or property’’ has been interpreted by courts to broadly include a variety of benefits, including intangible rights; but the Supreme Court in United States v. 

Cleveland, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), held that state licenses to operate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
9 

12 As one circuit court noted before Cleveland, ‘‘the government’s interest here is not simply 

that of a regulator, but rather that of a dispenser of valuable property in which the licensee 

has constitutionally protected property interests and which the government may enjoin upon 

misuse. We do not believe that Congress, in enacting the mail fraud statute, intended its reach 

to be dependent on artificial constructs and fleeting distinctions.’’ United States v. Martinez, 905 

F.2d 709 (3d Cir. 1990), overruled by Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000). 13One section for which the bill increases the maximum sentence is 18 U.S.C. § 600, which 

targets promises of employment for political activity. The Committee notes that this statute does 

not reach the routine practice of offering jobs as appropriate to those who assisted campaigns; 

rather it reaches only situations in which there was an explicit quid pro quo agreement in advance to give employment in exchange for political activity. 

video poker machines were not ‘‘property’’ within the meaning of 

the mail fraud statute. The bill would reverse the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Cleveland. As many circuit courts held before Cleveland 

was decided, licenses, permits and other intangible rights have 

value to the issuing authority, and, assuming a mailing or a wire, 

fraudulent deprivation of these rights should be chargeable as federal crimes.12

3. Technical fixes and increased statutory maximum sentences 

The bill also contains a series of long-needed technical fixes to select statutes, as well as targeted increases in statutory maximum 

penalties for statutes used in public corruption cases. For example, 

the bill amends the federal theft statute—18 U.S.C. § 641—to bring 

within its purview the District of Columbia government and its 

agencies. This change is long overdue in view of the District’s 

unique status, and it comports with the overarching statutory 

scheme because the District is already included in the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201) and the statute governing theft and 

bribery from programs receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. § 666). 

The need for this fix is acute: under current law, massive thefts of 

District of Columbia funds—such as the recent D.C. Tax and Revenue allegations of a $44 million fraud—cannot be prosecuted on 

a federal theft theory. 

Similarly, the bill adds the crimes of federal theft, and theft and 

bribery from programs receiving federal funds, as predicates for 

federal wire taps and as predicates under the Racketeer Influenced 

and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. These are serious offenses, 

on par with other offenses that already serve as wiretap and RICO 

predicates. 

The bill also increases the maximum penalties for certain public 

corruption related offenses.13 These increases reflect the Committee’s view of the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and 

they harmonize the punishment for these public corruption-related 

offenses with similar statutes. Increasing penalties in appropriate 

cases sends a message to would-be criminals and to the public that 

there will be severe consequences for breaching the public trust. 

The Committee notes, however, that, aside from any changes resulting from the limited review called for in Section 17 of the bill, 

it does not intend for the increases in statutory maximum sentences to trigger recommendations by the Sentencing Commission 

to increase the base offense levels for these crimes. Rather, the 

statutory increases in the bill are intended to give additional sentencing latitude for egregious cases. 

This bi-partisan bill is supported by the Department of Justice 

and by a wide array of public interest groups that have long advocated for vigorous enforcement of our fraud and public corruption 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
10 

laws, including the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. 

PIRG. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

Chairman Leahy introduced S. 1946, the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, on August 3, 2007, joined by 

Senator Cornyn as an original cosponsor. Since the bill’s introduction, Senator Sessions has joined on as a cosponsor. The bill was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The bill was considered by the Committee on the Judiciary on 

November 1, 2007. Chairman Leahy offered a complete substitute 

amendment which was accepted by unanimous consent. 

Senator Specter offered two amendments. The first amendment 

would have explicitly stated that campaign contributions may not 

be charged as gratuities. This amendment was rejected on a rollcall 

vote. The vote record is as follows: 

Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays, 1 Pass. 

Yeas (6) Nays (12) Pass (1) 

Cardin (D–MD) Biden (D–DE) Coburn (R–OK) 

Hatch (R–UT) Brownback (R–KS) 

Kyl (R–AZ) Cornyn (R–TX) 

Graham (R–SC) Durbin (D–IL) 

Specter (R–PA) Feingold (D–WI) 

Whitehouse (D–RI) Feinstein (D–CA) 

Kennedy (D–MA) 

Kohl (D–WI) 

Grassley (R–IA) 

Leahy (D–VT) 

Schumer (D–NY) 

Sessions (R–AL) 

Senator Specter offered an amendment to impose a ‘‘knowingly 

and corruptly’’ scienter requirement on the federal gratuities statute. The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote 

record is as follows: 

Tally: 2 Yeas, 14 Nays, 3 Passes. 

Yeas (2) Nays (14) Pass (3) 

Specter (R–PA) Biden (D–DE) Coburn (R–OK) 

Hatch (R–UT) Brownback (R–KS) Graham (R–SC) 

Cardin (D–MD) Kyl (R–AZ) 

Cornyn (R–TX) 

Durbin (D–IL) 

Feingold (D–WI) 

Feinstein (D–CA) 

Kennedy (D–MA) 

Kohl (D–WI) 

Grassley (R–IA) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
11 

Yeas (2) Nays (14) Pass (3) 

Leahy (D–VT) 

Schumer (D–NY) 

Sessions (R–AL) 

Whitehouse (D–RI) 

The Committee then voted to report favorably to the Senate the 

Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007. The 

Committee proceeded by voice vote. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Extension of Statute of Limitations for Serious Public 

Corruption Offenses. This section extends the statute of limitations 

from five to six years for bribery, deprivation of honest services involving a public official, and extortion by a public official. 

Section 3. Application of Mail and Wire Fraud Statutes to Licenses and Other Intangible Rights. This section expands coverage 

of the mail and wire fraud statutes to include schemes involving 

intangible interests such as contract rights, licenses, permits, trade 

secrets, franchises, and government grants 

Section 4. Venue for Federal Offenses. This section amends section 3237 of title 18, which governs venue for offenses begun in one 

district and completed in another district, to clarify that venue exists in any district in which any portion of the offense is committed, 

any act in furtherance of the offense is committed, or in which the 

offense is completed. 

Section 5. Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. This section modifies section 666 of title 

18 concerning theft or bribery from an organization, government or 

agency that receives federal financial assistance by reducing the 

$5,000 requirement to $1,000 for section 666 bribery offenses, increasing the maximum penalty for all offenses under this section 

from 10 years to 15 years, and clarifying that a ‘‘thing’’ of value can 

refer to a single item or more than one item. 

Section 6. Penalty for Section 641 Violations. This section increases the maximum term of imprisonment for theft and embezzlement of federal funds from 10 years to 15 years. 

Section 7. Penalty for Section 201(b) Violations. This section increases the maximum term of imprisonment for bribery violations 

from 15 years to 20 years. 

Section 8. Increase of Maximum Penalties for Certain Public Corruption Related Offenses. This section increases the maximum punishment to 10 years imprisonment for the following crimes: solicitation of political contributions (section 602); promise of employment 

for political activity (section 600); deprivation of employment for 

political activity (section 601); intimidation to secure political contributions (section 606); solicitation and acceptance of contributions 

in federal offices (section 607); and coercion of political activity by 

federal employees (section 610). 

Section 9. Addition of District of Columbia to Theft of Public 

Money Offense. This section amends section 641 of title 18 relating 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
12 

to theft from the government to include the District of Columbia 

government and agencies. 

Section 10. Additional RICO Predicates. This section adds section 

641 (embezzlement or theft of public money, property, or records) 

and section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs 

receiving federal funds), of title 18 as RICO predicates. 

Section 11. Additional Wiretap Predicates. The section amends 

2516(1) of title 18 to add sections 641 (embezzlement or theft of 

public money, property or records) and section 666 (relating to theft 

or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds) as predicate offenses for criminal wiretaps. 

Section 12. Clarification of Crime of Illegal Gratuities. This section amends sections 201(c)(1)(A) & (B) of title 18 to clarify that 

things of value, given to a public official ‘‘for or because of’’ that official’s position and not otherwise permitted by law or regulation, 

are illegal under the federal gratuities statute. 

Section 13. Clarification of Definition of ‘‘Official Act.’’ This section changes the definition of ‘‘official act’’ in section 201(a)(3) of 

title 18 to include any conduct that falls within the range of official 

duty of the public official. This section also clarifies that an official 

act can be a single act, more than one act, or a course of conduct. 

Section 14. Clarification of Course of Conduct Bribery. This section, in concert with section 13, amends the federal bribery statute 

to make clear that a corrupt payment can be made to influence 

more than one official act, and, to the same end, that a series of 

such payments may be made to influence a government official in 

performing a series of official acts. 

Section 15. Expanding Venue for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Proceedings. This section amends the perjury and obstruction 

of justice statutes to expand venue in those prosecutions not only 

to the district where the false statement or obstructive conduct occurs, but also to the district in which an affected proceeding takes 

place. 

Section 16. Authorization for Additional Personnel to Investigate 

and Prosecute Public Corruption Offenses. This section provides 

additional funds ($25,000,000 for fiscal years 2008–11) to Offices of 

Inspectors General and the Justice Department for the investigation and prosecution of public corruption offenses. The FBI and the 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices in recent years have had to divert resources 

away from criminal law priorities including fraud and corruption, 

and into counterterrorism. 

Section 17. Amendment of the Sentencing Guidelines Relating to 

Certain Crimes. This section directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider amending the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in light 

of the other provisions of this bill. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

NOVEMBER 9, 2007. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1946, the Public Corruption 

Prosecution Improvements Act. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
13 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1946—Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act 

Summary: S. 1946 would broaden the coverage of the current 

laws against public corruption and would increase penalties for 

such offenses. The legislation would expand the number of offenses 

relative to fraud committed by public officials that could be federally prosecuted. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $25 

million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011 mostly for the 

Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute violators of the 

bill’s provisions. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $100 million over the 

2008–2012 period. S. 1946 could affect direct spending and receipts, 

but we estimate that any such effects would not be significant. 

S. 1946 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1946 is shown in the following table. For this 

estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end of 

calendar year 2007. CBO assumes that the amounts authorized by 

the bill will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and 

that outlays will follow the historical rate of spending for similar 

activities. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 

750 (administration of justice). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level .................................................................................................. 25 25 25 25 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................... 15 25 25 25 10 

In addition to the costs shown in the table, enacting S. 1946 

could increase collections of criminal fines for violations of the bill’s 

provisions. CBO estimates that any additional collections would not 

be significant because of the relatively small number of additional 

cases likely to be affected. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, 

deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and subsequently spent without further appropriation. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector mandates 

S. 1946 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of 

state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact 

on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
14 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will 

result from the enactment of S. 1946. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007 

will provide federal law enforcement critical additional time and resources to help detect and prosecute corrupt conduct at all levels 

of Government. It also amends several federal statues in sensible, 

targeted ways to restore the intent of Congress, and to provide fair 

notice to public officials of what the laws provide. 

The Committee urges the prompt passage of this important legislation. 

VII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 1946, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 11—BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF 

INTEREST 

* * * * * * * 

§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses 

(a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term ‘‘public official’’ means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting 

for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of 

Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any 

such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror; 

(2) the term ‘‘person who has been selected to be a public official’’ means any person who has been nominated or appointed 

to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such 

person will be so nominated or appointed; and 

(3) the term ‘‘official act’’ means any ødecision or action on 

any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, 

which may at any time be pending, or 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.¿ action within the range of official duty, and any decision or action on any 

question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which 

may at any time be brought before any public official, in such 

public official’s official capacity or in such official’s place of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
15 

trust or profit. An official act can be a single act, more than one 

act, or a course of conduct. (b) Whoever— (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises 

øanything of value¿ any thing or things of value to any public 

official or person who has been selected to be a public official, 

or offers or promises any public official or any person who has 

been selected to be a public official to give øanything of value¿ 

any thing or things of value to any other person or entity, with 

intent—

(A) to influence any official act; or 

(B) to influence such public official or person who has 

been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in 

committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United 

States; or 

(C) to induce such public official or such person who has 

been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any 

act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person; 

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, 

accepts, or agrees to receive or accept øanything of value¿ any 

thing or things of value personally or for any other person or 

entity, in return for: 

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official 

act; 

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or 

to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for 

the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or 

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation 

of the official duty of such official or person; 

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises 

anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give øanything of value¿ any thing or things of value to 

any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person 

as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before 

any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of 

Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by 

the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself 

therefrom; 

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, 

accepts, or agrees to receive or testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be 

fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or 

imprisoned for not more than øfifteen years¿ 20 years, or both, 

and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, 

or profit under the United States. 

(c) Whoever—

(1) øotherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—¿ otherwise than as provided by law for 

the proper discharge of official duty, or by rule or regulation—


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
16 

(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises øanything of value¿ any thing or things of value to any public 

official, former public official, or person selected to be a 

public official, for or because of any official act performed 

or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official for or because of the official’s or person’s official position, or for or 

because of any official act performed or to be performed by 

such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or 

(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or 

agrees to receive or accept øanything of value¿ any thing 

or things of value personally øfor or because of any official 

act performed or to be performed by such official or person;¿ for or because of the official’s or person’s official position, or for or because of any official act performed or to be 

performed by such official or person; 

(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises øanything 

of value¿ any thing or things of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be 

given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or 

other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either 

House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, 

or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear 

evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s 

absence therefrom; 

(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, 

or agrees to receive or accept øanything of value¿ any thing or 

things of value personally for or because of the testimony nder 

oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a 

witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or 

for or because of such person’s absence therefrom; 

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two 

years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 29—ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political 

activity 

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to 

any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any 

political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
17 

office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

øone year¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 601. Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution 

(a) Whoever, directly or indirectly, knowingly causes or attempts 

to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political 

party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the 

denial or deprivation, of—

(1) any employment, position, or work in or for any agency 

or other entity of the Government of the United States, a 

State, or a political subdivision of a State, or any compensation 

or benefit of such employment, position, or work; or 

(2) any payment or benefit of a program of the United 

States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; 

if such employment, position, work, compensation, payment, or 

benefit is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an 

Act of Congress, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not 

more than øone year¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 602. Solicitation of political contributions 

(a) It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a candidate for the Congress; 

(2) an individual elected to or serving in the office of Senator 

or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 

the Congress; 

(3) an officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof; or 

(4) a person receiving any salary or compensation for services from money derived from the Treasury of the United 

States; to knowingly solicit any contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 from any other such officer, employee, or person. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or 

imprisoned not more than ø3 years¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 606. Intimidation to secure political contributions 

Whoever, being one of the officers or employees of the United 

States mentioned in section 602 of this title, discharges, or promotes, or degrades, or in any manner changes the official rank or 

compensation of any other officer or employee, or promises or 

threatens so to do, for giving or withholding or neglecting to make 

any contribution of money or other valuable thing for any political 

purpose, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

øthree years¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 607. Place of solicitation 

(a) PROHIBITION.—


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
18 

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in 

connection with a Federal, State, or local election from a person who is located in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United 

States. It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer 

or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection 

with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or 

building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person. 

(2) PENALTY.—A person who violates this section shall be 

fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than ø3 

years¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 610. Coercion of political activity 

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or 

coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to 

engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or 

working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person 

who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than øthree years¿ 10 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 31—EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT 

* * * * * * * 

§ 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds 

(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of 

this section exists—

(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or 

Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—

(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise 

without authority knowingly converts to the use of any 

person other than the rightful owner or intentionally 

misapplies, property that—

(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and 

(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or 

control of such organization, government, or agency; or 

(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any 

person, or accepts or agrees to accept, øanything of value¿ 

any thing or things of value from any person, intending to 

be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, 

transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, 

government, or agency involving any thing of value of 

ø$5,000¿ $1,000 or more; or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
19 

(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give øanything of 

value¿ any thing or things of value to any person, with intent 

to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a 

State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, 

in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving 

anything of value of ø$5,000¿ $1,000 or more; 

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ø10 

years¿ 15 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 641. Public money, property or records 

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his 

use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or 

disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the District of Columbia or the United States or of any department or 

agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract 

for the District of Columbia or the United States or any department 

or agency thereof; or 

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to 

convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, 

stolen, purloined or converted— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than øten 

years¿ 15 years, or both; but if the value of such property in the 

aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of 

$1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than one year, or both. 

The word ‘‘value’’ means face, par, or market value, or cost price, 

either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 63—MAIL FRAUD 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1341. Frauds and swindles 

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or 

artifice to defraud, or for obtaining ømoney or property¿ money, 

property, or any other thing of value by means of false or fraudulent 

pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, 

exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure 

for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or 

held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose 

of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places 

in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any 

matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal 

Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing 

whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial 

interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter 

or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it 

is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, 

any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
20 

oned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than 

$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television 

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or 

artifice to defraud, or for obtaining ømoney or property¿ money, 

property, or any other thing of value by means of false or fraudulent 

pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be 

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication 

in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 

years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such 

person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not 

more than 30 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 79—PERJURY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant 

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) øA prosecution under this section¿ A prosecution under 

this chapter or section 1503 may be brought in the district in 

which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about 

to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district 

in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1624. Venue 

A prosecution under this chapter may be brought in the district 

in which the oath, declaration, certificate, verification, or statement 

under penalty of perjury is made or in which a proceeding takes 

place in connection with the oath, declaration, certificate, 

verification, or statement. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 95—RACKETEERING 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) As used in this section—

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(4) * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
21 

(5) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(7) the term ‘‘specified unlawful activity’’ means— (A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed in 

section 1961(1) of this title except an act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31; 

(B) with respect to a financial transaction occurring in 

whole or in part in the United States, an offense against 

a foreign nation involving— (i) the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as such term is defined 

for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act); 

(ii) murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a 

crime of violence (as defined in section 16); 

(iii) fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, by 

or against a foreign bank (as defined in paragraph 7 

of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 

1978); 

(iv) bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for 

the benefit of a public official; 

(v) smuggling or export control violations involving— (I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions List established under section 38 of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or 

(II) an item controlled under regulations under 

the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. 

Parts 730–774); 

(vi) an offense with respect to which the United 

States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the 

case for prosecution, if the offender were found within 

the territory of the United States; or 

(vii) trafficking in persons, selling or buying of children, sexual exploitation of children, or transporting, 

recruiting or harboring a person, including a child, for 

commercial sex acts; 

(C) any act or acts constituting a continuing criminal enterprise, as that term is defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848); 

(D) an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating 

to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), 

section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 

351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain 

counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities 

of States and private entities), section 541 (relating to 

goods falsely classified), section 542 (relating to entry of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
22 

goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating 

to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 

(relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 

554 (relating to smuggling goods from the United States), 

øsection 641 (relating to public money, property, or 

records),¿ section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or 

misapplication by bank officer or employee), section 657 

(relating to lending, credit, and insurance institutions), 

section 658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged to 

farm credit agencies), øsection 666 (relating to theft or 

bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds),¿ 

section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to espionage), section 831 

(relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844(f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 (relating 

to interstate communications), section 922(1) (relating to 

the unlawful importation of firearms), section 924(n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in 

a foreign country), section 1005 (relating to fraudulent 

bank entries), 1006 (relating to fraudulent Federal credit 

institution entries), 1007 (relating to fraudulent Federal 

Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 (relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 1030 (relating to 

computer fraud and abuse), 1032 (relating to concealment 

of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of 

financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), 

section 1114 (relating to murder of United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected 

persons), section 1201 (relating to kidnapping), section 

1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to 

willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property within the special maritime 

and territorial jurisdiction), section 1708 (theft from the 

mail), section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), 

section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and postal robbery 

and theft), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence against 

maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in 

counterfeit goods and services), section 2332 (relating to 

terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to international terrorist acts 

transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating 

to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 

2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), section 

2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material support to 

terrorists), section 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), or section 2339D (relating to receiving militarytype training from a foreign terrorist organization) of this 

title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony 

violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
23 

1988 (relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating 

to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38(c) (relating to criminal violations) of 

the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 

206 (relating to penalties) of the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and 

punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of section 15 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 

ø7 U.S.C.A. § 2024¿ (relating to food stamp fraud) involving a quantity of coupons having a value of not less than 

$5,000, any violation of section 543(a)(1) of the Housing 

Act of 1949 ø42 U.S.C.A. § 1490s(a)(1)¿ (relating to equity 

skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1961. Definitions 

As used in this chapter— (1) ‘‘racketeering activity’’ means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled 

substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the 

Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State 

law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; 

(B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to 

bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 

472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 641 (relating 

to embezzlement or theft of public money, property, or records), 

section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the 

act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), section 

666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving 

Federal funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 

1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with 

access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of 

gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), 

section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to 

financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 

1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalizaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
24 

tion or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), 

section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), 

section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law 

enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 

(relating to false statement in application and use of passport), 

section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and 

trafficking in persons), section 1951 (relating to interference 

with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to 

racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the 

prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 

(relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to 

use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual 

exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to 

interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 

2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen 

property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phone records, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to 

criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating 

to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings 

and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 

(relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit 

marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating 

to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical 

weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any 

act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to 

labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement 

from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected 

with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of 

this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, 

or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 

Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any 

act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to 

bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
25 

to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), 

or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was 

committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that 

is indictable under any provision listed in section 

2332b(g)(5)(B); 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 119—WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL 

COMMUNICATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2516. Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications 

(1) The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate 

Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting 

Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division or National Security Division specially designated by 

the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal 

judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in 

conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing 

or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of—

(a) any offense punishable by death or by imprisonment for 

more than one year under sections 2122 and 2274 through 

2277 of title 42 of the United States Code (relating to the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954), section 2284 of 

title 42 of the United States Code (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel), or under the following chapters of this 

title: chapter 10 (relating to biological weapons) chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 55 (relating to kidnapping), chapter 90 (relating to protection of trade secrets), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), chapter 115 (relating to treason), chapter 

102 (relating to riots), chapter 65 (relating to malicious mischief), chapter 111 (relating to destruction of vessels), or chapter 81 (relating to piracy); 

(b) a violation of section 186 or section 501(c) of title 29, 

United States Code (dealing with restrictions on payments and 

loans to labor organizations), or any offense which involves 

murder, kidnapping, robbery, or extortion, and which is punishable under this title; 

(c) any offense which is punishable under the following sections of this title: section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 43 (relating to animal enterprise terrorism), section 81 (arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), section 201 (bribery of public officials and 

witnesses), section 215 (relating to bribery of bank officials), 

section 224 (bribery in sporting contests), section 641 (relating 

to embezzlement or theft of public money, property, or records), 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
26 

section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of 

section 844 (unlawful use of explosives), section 1032 (relating 

to concealment of assets), section 1084 (transmission of wagering information), section 751 (relating to escape), section 832 

(relating to nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats), 

section 842 (relating to explosive materials), section 930 (relating to possession of weapons in Federal facilities), section 1014 

(relating to loans and credit applications generally; renewals 

and discounts), section 1114 (relating to officers and employees 

of the United States), section 1116 (relating to protection of 

foreign officials), sections 1503, 1512, and 1513 (influencing or 

injuring an officer, juror, or witness generally), section 1510 

(obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1591 (sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion), section 1751 

(Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, 

and assault), section 1951 (interference with commerce by 

threats or violence), section 1952 (interstate and foreign travel 

or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 

1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the 

commission of murder for hire), section 1959 (relating to violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity), section 1954 (offer, 

acceptance, or solicitation to influence operations of employee 

benefit plan), section 1955 (prohibition of business enterprises 

of gambling), section 1956 (laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), 

section 659 (theft from interstate shipment), section 664 (embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), section 1343 

(fraud by wire, radio, or television), section 1344 (relating to 

bank fraud), section 1992 (relating to terrorist attacks against 

mass transportation), sections 2251 and 2252 (sexual exploitation of children), section 2251A (selling or buying of children), section 2252A (relating to material constituting or containing child pornography), section 1466A (relating to child obscenity), section 2260 (production of sexually explicit depictions 

of a minor for importation into the United States), sections 

2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425 (relating to transportation for illegal sexual activity and related crimes), sections 2312, 2313, 

2314, and 2315 (interstate transportation of stolen property), 

section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle parts), section 2340A (relating to torture), section 

1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1029 (relating to 

fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), 

section 3146 (relating to penalty for failure to appear), section 

3521(b)(3) (relating to witness relocation and assistance), section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 

section 38 (relating to aircraft parts fraud), section 1963 (violations with respect to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations), section 115 (relating to threatening or retaliating 

against a Federal official), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), 

a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud 

and abuse), section 351 (violations with respect to congressional, Cabinet, or Supreme Court assassinations, kidnapping, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
27 

and assault), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions 

involving nuclear materials), section 33 (relating to destruction 

of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 175c (relating to variola 

virus), section 956 (conspiracy to harm persons or property 

overseas), a felony violation of section 1028 (relating to production of false identification documentation), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of 

naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1541 (relating to 

passport issuance without authority), section 1542 (relating to 

false statements in passport applications), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passports), section 1544 (relating 

to misuse of passports), or section 1546 (relating to fraud and 

misuse of visas, permits, and other documents); 

(d) any offense involving counterfeiting punishable under 

section 471, 472, or 473 of this title; 

(e) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under 

title 11 or the manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic drugs, 

marihuana, or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any 

law of the United States; 

(f) any offense including extortionate credit transactions 

under sections 892, 893, or 894 of this title; 

(g) a violation of section 5322 of title 31, United States Code 

(dealing with the reporting of currency transactions), or section 

5324 of title 31, United States Code (relating to structuring 

transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited); 

(h) any felony violation of sections 2511 and 2512 (relating 

to interception and disclosure of certain communications and to 

certain intercepting devices) of this title; 

(i) any felony violation of chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) 

of this title; 

(j) any violation of section 60123(b) (relating to destruction 

of a natural gas pipeline), section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault 

on a flight crew with dangerous weapon), or section 46505(b)(3) 

or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or 

endangerment of human life, by means of weapons on aircraft) 

of title 49; 

(k) any criminal violation of section 2778 of title 22 (relating 

to the Arms Export Control Act); 

(l) the location of any fugitive from justice from an offense 

described in this section; 

(m) a violation of section 274, 277, or 278 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1327, or 1328) (relating to 

the smuggling of aliens); 

(n) any felony violation of sections 922 and 924 of title 18, 

United States Code (relating to firearms); 

(o) any violation of section 5861 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 (relating to firearms); 

(p) a felony violation of section 1028 (relating to production 

of false identification documents), section 1542 (relating to 

false statements in passport applications), section 1546 (relatVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR239.XXX SR239

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
28 

ing to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, section 1028A (relating to aggravated identity theft)) of 

this title or a violation of section 274, 277, or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to the smuggling of 

aliens); or 

(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical 

weapons): or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2332f, 2332g, 

2332h, 2339, 2339A, 2339B, 2339C, or 2339D of this title (relating to terrorism); 

(r) any criminal violation of section 1 (relating to illegal restraints of trade or commerce), 2 (relating to illegal monopolizing of trade or commerce), or 3 (relating to illegal restraints 

of trade or commerce in territories or the District of Columbia) 

of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3); or 

(s) any conspiracy to commit any offense described in any 

subparagraph of this paragraph. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 211—JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3237. øOffenses begun in one district and completed in another¿ Offense taking place in more than one district 

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district 

and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, 

may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. 

Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in 

interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or 

person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except 

as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be 

inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into 

which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person 

moves or in any district in which an act in furtherance of the offense is committed. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 213—LIMITATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3299A. Corruption offenses 

Unless an indictment is returned or the information is returned 

or the information is filed against a person within 6 years after the 

commission of the offense, a person may not be prosecuted, tried, or 

punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy or an attempt to violate 

the offense in— (1) section 201 or 666; 

(2) section 1341 or 1343, when charged in conjunction with 

section 1346 and where the offense involves a scheme or artifice 

to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services of 

a public official; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
29 

(3) section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under color 

of official right; 

(4) section 1952, to the extent that the unlawful activity involves bribery; or 

(5) section 1962, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves bribery chargeable under State law, involves a violation 

of section 201 or 666, section 1341 or 1343, when charged in 

conjunction with section 1346 and where the offense involves a 

scheme artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services of a public official, or section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under color of official right. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING