Defining Federal Corruption: How the US Supreme Court Is Redrawing the Legal Boundaries

Federal anti-corruption law in the United States is not contained within one comprehensive statute. Prosecutors rely on an overlapping framework that includes bribery offences, honest-services fraud, property fraud, extortion, false statements, campaign-finance rules and money-laundering laws.

This architecture gives enforcement agencies several routes for addressing corruption. It also creates recurring questions about how far broadly worded federal offences can extend into state and local government, private political influence and ordinary commercial relationships.

In May 2023, the US Supreme Court addressed those boundaries in two cases arising from New York’s “Buffalo Billion” economic-development initiative. In Percoco v. United States, the Court considered when a politically influential private citizen may owe the public a duty of honest services. In Ciminelli v. United States, it rejected the theory that withholding economically valuable information can itself constitute property fraud.

The decisions narrowed particular prosecution theories, but they did not create general immunity for political advisers, developers or procurement participants. Their significance lies in the Court’s insistence that corruption prosecutions remain tied to clearly defined duties, traditional property interests and conduct expressly covered by Congress.

Listen the podcast

Watch the video

Why the two decisions matter now

Public corruption frequently develops through relationships that do not fit neatly within formal job descriptions.

Political advisers may move between government and election campaigns. Lobbyists and consultants can exercise considerable influence without holding office. Developers may shape procurement requirements before a competitive process begins. Contractors can obtain valuable public agreements through materially false representations even where the government ultimately receives usable goods or services.

Federal prosecutors have historically used the mail and wire fraud statutes to address some of this conduct. Those laws prohibit schemes to obtain money or property through fraudulent communications. Congress separately defined fraud to include schemes depriving another person of the intangible right to honest services.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly resisted interpretations that transform those provisions into general federal codes of ethical government. Its concern is not that corruption is acceptable. It is that criminal offences must give fair notice, preserve the division between federal and state authority and identify the property, duty or official exchange that makes the conduct unlawful.

The 2023 decisions continued that approach. Subsequent rulings have reinforced some limits while clarifying that materially deceptive procurement conduct can remain federal fraud even where the victim suffers no net financial loss.

Percoco: political influence without formal office

Joseph Percoco was a senior aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. He served as the Governor’s Executive Deputy Secretary, left government temporarily in 2014 to manage Cuomo’s re-election campaign and returned to his official role after the election.

During that interval, a development company sought state assistance with a labour-related requirement affecting a publicly supported project. The company arranged two payments totalling $35,000 for Percoco through his wife.

Although he was formally working for the campaign, Percoco contacted a senior state official and urged the agency to withdraw the requirement. The agency changed its position shortly afterwards.

Prosecutors charged Percoco with honest-services wire fraud. The theory was that, despite his temporary private status, he exercised sufficient control over government affairs to owe the public a fiduciary duty.

The trial court told jurors that Percoco could have such a duty if he dominated and controlled government business and government employees relied on him because of his special relationship with the administration.

The Supreme Court rejected that test as too vague. Political systems routinely include advisers, former officials, party leaders, relatives, lobbyists and other individuals who possess substantial influence. A rule turning influence above an undefined threshold into a federal fiduciary duty would leave ordinary people unable to determine when political access becomes criminal responsibility.

The Court did not hold that a private person can never owe honest services to the public. It recognised that a person formally delegated authority to perform government functions may assume a fiduciary duty even without being a salaried public employee.

The defect was the jury instruction. “Special relationship”, reliance and political dominance did not provide a sufficiently precise standard for criminal liability.

This distinction is essential. The decision limited a particular theory based on informal influence; it did not establish that campaign officials, advisers or contractors are categorically beyond the reach of honest-services fraud.

Ciminelli: the limits of property fraud

The second case concerned Louis Ciminelli, whose construction company participated in procurement processes connected with the Buffalo Billion initiative.

Prosecutors alleged that the requests for proposals had been structured to favour preferred developers. The government relied on the Second Circuit’s “right-to-control” theory of wire fraud.

Under that theory, a victim could be deprived of property when deception denied it potentially valuable economic information needed to make informed decisions about its assets. The prosecution did not need to establish that the defendant had obtained traditional property belonging to the victim.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that approach.

The federal fraud statutes protect traditional money or property interests. An abstract right to accurate information for economic decision-making is not itself property merely because the information could affect how an organisation uses its assets.

The Court was particularly concerned that the theory could convert an almost unlimited range of commercial deception, undisclosed conflicts and contractual disputes into federal crimes. Such an expansion would allow prosecutors to regulate conduct traditionally governed through state fraud, contract, procurement and ethics laws.

The decision did not declare bid rigging lawful or conclude that the procurement process was legitimate. It held that the conviction could not rest on the specific right-to-control theory presented to the jury.

The government asked the Court to uphold the conviction under an alternative theory that the defendants had obtained actual public contract funds. The Court declined because the case had been charged, tried and affirmed solely on the invalid theory. An appellate court cannot substitute a new basis of criminal liability after the jury was instructed on a different one.

What the rulings did—and did not—change

The two cases addressed different elements of federal fraud law.

Percoco concerned duty. Honest-services fraud requires a relationship in which the defendant owes legally recognisable duties to the victim. Political influence alone does not automatically create a fiduciary duty to the public.

Ciminelli concerned property. Conventional wire fraud requires a scheme whose object is traditional money or property. Depriving an organisation of information or decision-making autonomy is insufficient without such a property interest.

Neither ruling removed the core federal prohibition against bribery and kickbacks. A public official who accepts value in exchange for corrupt action can still face honest-services fraud, federal-programme bribery, Hobbs Act, tax, false-statement and money-laundering charges, depending on the evidence and statutory requirements.

Private participants can also remain liable as payors, conspirators, aiders, intermediaries or agents performing delegated public functions.

The practical effect is greater importance being placed on how the case is charged. Prosecutors must identify the precise duty, property interest, corrupt exchange and statutory basis before trial rather than relying on broad concepts of unfairness or dishonest government.

Snyder: bribes and gratuities are not interchangeable

The Supreme Court further narrowed one federal corruption statute in 2024 through Snyder v. United States.

The case concerned 18 U.S.C. §666, which applies to bribery involving state, local and other organisations receiving significant federal funds. The question was whether the statute covered only bribes agreed before an official act or also gratuities provided afterwards as a reward.

The Court held that the provision prohibits bribes, not after-the-fact gratuities.

Bribery requires a corrupt exchange: the payment is given or accepted with the intention of influencing official conduct. A gratuity may reward something already done without proving that the official acted pursuant to an earlier agreement.

The ruling does not make gratuities universally lawful. State ethics rules, local ordinances, other federal statutes and employment policies may prohibit them. It means that §666 cannot be used as a general federal gratuities law where Congress did not clearly create one.

For investigators, timing remains important but is not conclusive. A payment made after an official decision may still be evidence of an earlier corrupt agreement. The question is whether the benefit was connected to a quid pro quo rather than when the money physically changed hands.

Kousisis: fraud does not always require net economic loss

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Kousisis v. United States clarified an important limit on how broadly Ciminellishould be read.

A contractor obtained government-funded painting contracts after promising to use a qualifying disadvantaged business as a supplier. The business was instead used as a pass-through, although the physical painting work was completed satisfactorily.

The defendants argued that there could be no wire fraud because the public authority received the economic value for which it paid.

The Court rejected that argument. A person can commit wire fraud by materially deceiving a victim into transferring money or property even where the defendant provides something valuable in return and does not intend to cause net financial loss.

The critical distinction from Ciminelli was that government money was an object of the scheme. The defendants allegedly obtained contracts and payments through material falsehoods. The prosecution was not treating decision-making information as the property itself.

Together, the cases establish a more precise boundary. Information alone is not property, but material deception used to obtain actual money or property may constitute fraud even when the transaction produces some equivalent economic value.

Why federal corruption cases are difficult to construct

The evidence in public-corruption investigations is rarely contained in one transaction.

Payments may be described as consulting fees, campaign contributions, employment, loans, gifts, travel or legitimate commercial arrangements. Official assistance may appear through meetings, introductions, agenda decisions, procurement specifications or pressure applied to another agency.

The government must distinguish access from exchange. Businesses and citizens are entitled to advocate, donate, lobby and request official assistance. Criminal liability depends on the statutory offence and evidence that the benefit was linked to corrupt conduct, materially deceptive procurement or another prohibited objective.

The institutional roles may also change over time. A person can move from government to a campaign, private consultancy or transition team while retaining relationships and access. Compliance systems based only on current job titles may therefore overlook the relevant influence and duty.

Corporate structures add further complexity. The entity receiving a public contract may differ from the company paying the intermediary, employing a relative or funding political activity. Investigators need to identify effective control, economic benefit and the complete relationship network.

What an evidence-led investigation looks like

The investigation should begin with a precise chronology.

Analysts need to identify when the government decision arose, who could influence it, when benefits were discussed or transferred and what official or procurement actions followed.

The alleged duty or property interest must be defined early. In an honest-services case, investigators need evidence of the fiduciary relationship and corrupt exchange. In a property-fraud case, they must identify the money or property that the scheme sought to obtain.

Communications can establish purpose and expectation. Emails, messages, calendars and call records may show that a payment was understood as consideration for assistance rather than ordinary consulting work or political support.

Financial evidence should trace the ultimate source and beneficiary. Payments routed through spouses, advisers, affiliated businesses or sham contracts may reveal value that is not visible from the immediate transaction description.

Investigators should also test legitimate explanations. Political access, favourable decisions and commercial success are not independently proof of corruption. The strongest cases demonstrate convergence between benefit, intent, duty, deception and the relevant official or economic outcome.

What a resilient control stack looks like

The first layer is public-sector relationship mapping. Organisations should identify officials, political advisers, campaign personnel, government agents and intermediaries connected to material business decisions.

The second layer is role-sensitive due diligence. Monitoring should reflect movements between government, campaigns, lobbying and private employment rather than relying on static politically exposed person classifications.

The third layer is payment-purpose validation. Consulting fees, employment arrangements, loans, donations and benefits involving politically connected persons should have documented services, commercial terms and independent approval.

The fourth layer is event-based monitoring. Payments and relationship activity should be assessed against procurement stages, regulatory applications, public funding decisions and contract awards.

The fifth layer is third-party governance. Lobbyists, advisers and introducers should be assessed for ownership, qualifications, political connections, compensation and actual deliverables.

The sixth layer is evidential traceability. Compliance teams should preserve the rationale for approvals, exceptions and escalations so that legitimate conduct can be distinguished from concealed influence.

Finally, confirmed incidents should improve the control framework. New payment mechanisms, relationship structures and procurement vulnerabilities should feed into risk assessments, transaction monitoring and training.

What this means for financial crime leaders

The Supreme Court’s anti-corruption decisions do not establish that deceptive or unethical public conduct is acceptable. They require the government to prosecute it through clearly defined offences supported by evidence matching the statutory elements.

For financial institutions and corporations, that is not a reason to weaken anti-bribery controls. Conduct outside one federal statute may still violate state law, procurement rules, campaign-finance requirements, internal policies or another federal offence.

The stronger operational response is greater precision. Teams need to understand who owed the duty, what property was targeted, what benefit changed hands, what decision was sought and which legal framework applies.

Public corruption succeeds when influence, payment and official action are examined separately. Institutions that reconnect those elements—while distinguishing legitimate advocacy from corrupt exchange—will be better positioned to identify misconduct without treating every political or commercial relationship as criminal.