William J. Jefferson, a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives, was charged with a sixteen-count indictment alleging a variety of crimes including bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, foreign corrupt practices, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and racketeering. These charges are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division). Congressman Jefferson filed a motion to dismiss Counts 5–10 of the Indictment which charge the Congressman with depriving citizens and the House of Representatives of his honest services by wire fraud. The Congressman’s motion to dismiss argued that the Indictment failed to allege the requisite elements of an honest services wire fraud as required by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, the Congressman argued that the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (1988) was unconstitutional. In a July 8, 2008 decision, the Court rejected both arguments and denied the Congressman’s motion. United States v. Jefferson, 2008 WL 2721262 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2008).
Congressman Jefferson is the currently sitting member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District. The Congressman has held this office since 1991. Among other things, the Indictment filed against the Congressman alleges that he used his office to advance the business interests of various individuals and corporations in exchange for money and other things of value. These payments are alleged to have been made either directly to the Congressman or through entities that the Congressman is alleged to have controlled through family members.
Counts 5–10 of the Indictment allege that in furtherance of these schemes the Congressman engaged in various wire communications. The wire communications are alleged to have been conducted in furtherance of one or more schemes to defraud and deprive America citizens of their right to the Congressman’s honest services by taking bribes in return for official acts.
In response to the Congressman's motion to dismiss certain charges, the Court went on to state that the “Fourth Circuit has clearly held that a public official who solicits or receives bribes deprives the public of his or her honest services, and that a scheme to solicit or receive bribes may give rise to liability under the honest services fraud statute.” 2008 WL 2721262, at *3 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2008) (citing United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347, 1362 (4th Cir. 1979). The Court added that the Indictment sufficiently charged a violation of the honest service wire fraud statute in that the Indictment properly alleges that the Congressman “devised a scheme to solicit or receive bribes and transmitted a wire communication in furtherance of that scheme.” Id. Moreover, the Court noted that the Indictment’s allegations consisted of “official acts” that may expose the Congressman to liability. The Court added that “Counts 5–10 adequately allege the statutory elements of an honest services fraud offense, and the government is entitled to pursue a theory of the offense at trial that is predicated on alleged conflicts of interest [in addition to bribery] in defendant’s performance of official duties.” Id. at *4.
The Court concluded by rejecting the Congressman's argument that the wire fraud statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Comments