May 30, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 150

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 29, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Supreme Court Tosses NY Corruption Convictions, Signaling Skepticism with Government’s Theories of Liability – Part 1

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States tossed the convictions of two defendants found guilty of public corruption charges during former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s term. The opinions, Ciminelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States, continue the Court’s recent trend of narrowing the government’s ability to prosecute defendants under outlier theories of liability for white collar crimes. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we’ll outline Ciminelli, and in Part 2, we’ll focus on Percoco and explain how the two decisions may impact strategies of both prosecutors and defense counsel alike.

Ciminelli v. United States – “Right to Control” Theory out of Control

In Ciminelli, the defendant, Louis Ciminelli, was convicted of federal wire fraud for his involvement in a bid-rigging scheme related to then-Gov. Cuomo’s Buffalo Billion initiative, which was administered by a nonprofit corporation. Through his construction company, Ciminelli paid a lobbyist up to $180,000 annually to help it win state-funded contracts. In 2013, Ciminelli, a board member of the nonprofit, and the lobbyist created an arrangement whereby they would tailor the bid process to effectively guarantee that the defendant’s construction company would win the contracts. Ciminelli received a $750 million project using this approach.

In indicting and convicting Ciminelli, the government relied solely on the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of wire fraud. Under this theory, a defendant is guilty of wire fraud if he or she schemes to deprive the victim of “potentially valuable economic information . . . necessary to make discretionary economic decisions.” Though the Second Circuit has employed this theory for decades, no other circuit has adopted it, and the Sixth and the Ninth circuits have held that it is unconstitutional. On appeal, Ciminelli argued that the right to control one’s assets is not “property” for purposes of the federal wire fraud charge. The Second Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed his conviction.

The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the longstanding “right to control” theory of liability “cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes.” The Court found that the “right to control” theory was inconsistent with the text and history of the statute, which limited its reach to only traditional notions of property interests. In line with its other recent decisions narrowing the scope of federal white-collar prosecutions, the Court also noted that the theory “vastly expands federal jurisdiction to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions,” including those traditionally left to state law, by “criminaliz[ing] traditionally civil matters and federaliz[ing] traditionally state matters.”

Read Part 2, where we’ll explore Percoco and the implications the two opinions may have on the future of white-collar enforcement actions.

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPNational Law Review, Volume XIII, Number 145
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Senior Attorney

Tara Sarosiek has represented corporate and individual clients through investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and various other federal and state agencies, and she has advised clients with respect to allegations of securities fraud, market manipulation, and conspiracy and mail and wire fraud.

Tara also has a diverse litigation practice and has successfully represented clients in federal and state courts, as well as in arbitrations before FINRA and the American Arbitration Association. She has successfully briefed appellate...

615-252-3522
Associate

Virginia Wright is an associate in the Government Enforcement and Investigations Practice Group.

 Virginia received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was an article editor and executive technical editor for the Journal of Law and Gender and Professional Chair for HLS Lambda. She has a B.A. (summa cum laude) in Classical Studies from the University of Alabama, where she was a member of the 7th Cohort of the University Fellows Experience.

205-521-8876