Opinion ID: 869748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: False Financial Disclosures as Evidence of

Text: Honest Services Mail Fraud Ciavarella contends that the evidence of false financial disclosure statements cannot sustain a conviction for honest services mail fraud based on a conflict-of-interest theory under Skilling, without evidence that Ciavarella accepted a bribe in exchange for filing the false disclosure statements.16 Under Pennsylvania law, judges must file annual financial interest statements reporting on their outside financial interests, creditors, income, and gifts. 204 Pa. Code. § 29.52. For the years 2003 through 2007, Ciavarella and Conahan filed false financial interest statements in which they failed to disclose their receipt of payments from Mericle and Powell. Ciavarella‟s argument is without merit. While the Skilling Court confined criminality under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 to schemes involving bribes or kickbacks, Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2931, “[t]he bribery theory does not require that each quid, or item of value, be linked to a specific quo, or official act. Rather, a bribe may come in the form of a „stream of benefits.‟” Wright, 665 F.3d at 568 (quoting United States v. Bryant, 655 F.3d 232, 240-41 (3d Cir. 2011)). As noted, concealment of material information through false disclosure statements, by itself, cannot serve as the basis for an honest 16 We apply de novo review over questions of statutory interpretation. United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 671 (3d Cir. 2012). “We review the legal accuracy of a district court‟s jury instructions de novo.” United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 261 (3d Cir. 2012). 41 services mail fraud conviction, but when there is evidence that the concealment by false disclosures furthers a scheme to defraud through bribes and kickbacks, then the false disclosure statements can support such a conviction. Here, the false financial disclosures that Ciavarella mailed are relevant to both the “use of the mails” and the “scheme to defraud” elements. The District Court properly instructed the jury that the Government was required to prove that the scheme to defraud was conducted through the use of bribes or kickbacks through the use of the mails. It also instructed that a government official may breach his or her duty of honest services through bribery or kickbacks and that the jury must find that the defendant engaged in undisclosed biased decision making through bribery or kickbacks. Ciavarella also cites to United States v. Genova, 333 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that the “mere mailing” of false disclosure statements cannot constitute mail fraud because “the mailing of false statements does not read like the definition of bribery.” Ciavarella‟s Br. at 46. Genova involved the city prosecutor‟s payment of kickbacks to the mayor in exchange for the city‟s legal business. Genova, 333 F.3d at 754. While the Court held that false financial disclosure statements were not predicate offenses under RICO because the state‟s disclosure requirement “does not read like a definition of bribery,” it permitted the false disclosures to support the mail fraud convictions. Id. at 758. Thus, contrary to Ciavarella‟s position, Genova reaffirms our view that the false financial statements at issue in the instant action can support Ciavarella‟s honest mail fraud convictions. In Genova, the Court held that the false disclosures were part of a scheme to defraud because “[k]eeping a lid on the kickbacks was essential to permit their continuation” and “[a] 42 jury sensibly could conclude that the false mailings were integral to this scheme.” Id. at 759. Here, too, a jury could conclude that Ciavarella‟s mailing of false financial disclosure statements was “integral” to his scheme to defraud through the use of bribes or kickbacks and that the false disclosures helped “keep a lid on the kickbacks” received by Ciavarella.