March 3, 2011
ABA White Collar Crime Conference - Honest Services Fraud Panel
This panel was moderated by Professor Julie O'Sullivan of Georgetown Law School.
It started with Denis J. McInerney, Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, who gave the history of the mail fraud statute from its inception up to the Court's decision in Skilling.
The second panelist was Martha Boersch of Jones Day. She spoke about the 110 cases that have been examined post-Skilling. Some circuits have said a fiduciary duty is required - but not all circuits have held this. Another big issue is whether the government has to prove a quid pro quo - she noted the split in some court cases on this issue. There is also uncertainty as to what a quid pro quo would be in this context. Does the government have to prove a contemplated economic harm? There are likely to be future cases on the definition of honest services coming from instructions given in mail fraud cases.
The third speaker wasFrank Razzano, Pepper Hamilton,who spoke about five open questions: 1) Does it require a fiduciary duty? (He said you should make sure that there is a breach on the part of the payor); 2) Is legislation necessary to address this issue or is there a way around this for prosecutors; (He spoke about the case of U.S. v. Jain here- how you can use a pecuniary theory of mail fraud; 3) Does Skilling limit the stream of benefits theory? 4) He noted that you need to analyze the intent of the payor and payee carefully 5) Gratuities - does honest services fraud include this, or is it limited to bribery? He looked at some of the cases where these issues had arisen.
Finally Professor Julie O'Sullivan talked about congressional acts that have been introduced since Skilling.
(esp)(blogging from San Diego)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ABA White Collar Crime Conference - Honest Services Fraud Panel:
Quid pro quo is either expressed or implied.
If not - then Breach of Fiduciary Duty(s) are lack of competence/ willful blindness.
We can argue that Section 1346 applies as much - if not More often to prosecutors than purported perpetrators.
A clear standard must be set and Congress needs to revist these issues in Depth!
Posted by: Laser Haas | Mar 4, 2011 10:15:23 AM
What about Public Corruption where a law enforcement officer fabricates evidence in order to convict a person? Is the Honest Service Fraud applicable at all or some other law.
What about a atate audit manager that directs all tax auditor to utilize a procedure to maximize the sample and projection audit bills against a particular sector of business operation that that state! Are the business owners/taxpayer not do Honest Service?
Posted by: TOMMY J MORGAN | May 22, 2012 2:07:06 PM