1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Please bribe me next month when people are not watching.

    From micky@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 21:38:53 2024
    A recent decision of the USSC overturned a bribery conviction because
    the payment was made after the act, not before. I have been assuming
    this was done on the basis of a USSC concocted notion that it's not
    bribery if it's paid afterwards because, I don't know, they bribee
    couldn't force it to be paid so he wasn't relying on it.

    This flies in the face of how most or all bribery works.

    But I hate to think ill of the USSC.

    Is there any chance the statute was poorly written and maybe a literal
    reading or something justified a distinction between paying before and
    paying after?

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to micky on Tue Aug 20 08:27:13 2024
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 21:38:53 -0700, micky wrote:

    A recent decision of the USSC overturned a bribery conviction because
    the payment was made after the act, not before. I have been assuming
    this was done on the basis of a USSC concocted notion that it's not
    bribery if it's paid afterwards because, I don't know, they bribee
    couldn't force it to be paid so he wasn't relying on it.

    This flies in the face of how most or all bribery works.

    But I hate to think ill of the USSC.

    Is there any chance the statute was poorly written and maybe a literal reading or something justified a distinction between paying before and
    paying after?

    Isn't there a precept in common law that you can't enforce an unlawful/
    illegal contract in court ? Would that apply here ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to micky on Tue Aug 20 08:30:45 2024
    On 8/20/2024 12:38 AM, micky wrote:
    A recent decision of the USSC overturned a bribery conviction because
    the payment was made after the act, not before. I have been assuming
    this was done on the basis of a USSC concocted notion that it's not
    bribery if it's paid afterwards because, I don't know, they bribee
    couldn't force it to be paid so he wasn't relying on it.

    This flies in the face of how most or all bribery works.

    But I hate to think ill of the USSC.

    Is there any chance the statute was poorly written and maybe a literal reading or something justified a distinction between paying before and
    paying after?


    I think a lot still depends on the facts of the case. Here's an article discussing this:

    https://www.eyeonenforcement.com/2024/06/supreme-court-holds-bribery-statute-does-not-criminalize-after-the-fact-gratuities/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)